Several people have used the term "naturalism" in an attempt to explain how the universe evolved intelligent life without an intelligent designer.

I have created this thread to ask what people mean by Naturalism?

I will post an answer to Shoku on something he said to me.

Shoku, you stated that:
"Naturalism explains."




So you are defining "naturalism" as being the conclusion of/by "all of the sciences put together" that there is no 'creator' or 'intelligent design'?

When did they (science) conclude or assume this premise?

This is not an explanation, it is an assumption or a conclusion; and you are now making the claim that it is the conclusion of "all sciences put together."

Therefore, if this is your definition of "naturalism" it cannot explain anything because it is not an "explanation," it is a "conclusion." ( ----> yours, not science's)

Therefore your conclusion is that "order without intention" explains everything. That is a conclusion, not an explanation.

Do you really think that is an "explanation?"

Not sufficient. It looks like a circular argument to me.

Wow, my head started hurting just thinking of wrapping my head around that supposition.................. Not up for this!!!

Hi Jeannieeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Hi!

(post deleted by Sky)

Naturalism is naturally naturilstic in its natural environment that is naturally nature based from natural lifestyle of naturalistic nature's doing.

That is how we know

But Sky, he is defining "Naturalism" as "Order without intent."

To say that, he is making the assumption that "no intent" is involved. That is a conclusion.

Then, he (and others) claim that "naturalism explains" how the universe evolved without intelligent designer(s.)

Which is just stating that the universe evolved (and order arose from chaos) without intent, purpose or design...which means that there is no intelligent design.

A circular argument.

Therefore, "naturalism" is not an "explanation" it is a conclusion, --according to his definition of "naturalism."

I will need a different definition of naturalism.

Ok, I see what you mean now.

I'd like to comment on the comment made by Shoku:



But what sense does this statement even make?

Science is nothing more than an observation of how the things within the box interact and evolve over time. However, the things that exist within the box had already been predetermined from outside the box.

So where does the conclusion that something from outside the box had no involvement in it?

That would be like taking a pair of dice. Rolling them, and seeing that only the numbers 2, 12 or any whole number in between keep coming up consistently, and then saying that the designer of the dice had no involvement in that.

Humans are merely a number on the cosmic dice. So how can you claim that the designer of the dice had no involvement in that?

According to quantum mechanics, and everything we know about chemistry there are a limited number of elements. Thus there can only be a limited number of combinations of elements.

Viewing these finite elements as numbers on the faces of the cosmic dice, the roll or this universe was just as predestined as the roll of dice. Only certain numbers could come up.

So when viewed this way it appears to me that what was done "outside of the box" was completely involved with the possible outcomes of what could occur within the box.

Considering what Shoku said, and taking into consideration an exchange I had with Bushi, which resulted in the statement “there is not intent or purpose, only structure and interaction”, I think this is the way the logic goes.

The fundamental order we observe in all things (i.e. that which makes up all other observables) has no observed intent/purpose.
Therefore, all intent/purpose is illusory.

Which seems perfectly reasonable until you start looking at things like the man/machine interface research done at PEAR.

Could that be because intent/purpose is subjective and cannot be 'observed' only assumed?

Bingo!

And that's the exact reason for these two papers:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1997-JSE-SOS.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Change_The_Rules.pdf

Yes I downloaded those papers. I haven't read them yet though. I think I get the gist.

So now that I know where Shoku, Creative and Billyclub are coming from, I guess there is no further thing to discuss. They are students of a different science.

Sky, Jeannie, and Abra

VS

Shoku, Billy, and Creative

Who will have the ultimate answers?

Stay tuned after these commercials.

Don't mind me, I just hand out the sodas

I wanna see the Ring Girl.

No problem. That will cost ya!

Yes, that truly is pretty much what it boils down to.

But hey, it's something to do. We continue to throw our respective "mud" at each other and count ourselves a point when any of it sticks.

Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

I'm fully aware of where they are coming from. I've been through that wringer myself. What I've realized is that all scientists do no support the same conclusions, and many of the conclusions that are being held up as 'science' are actually very limited ideas.

For example, the observation that evolution is a process of "natural selection" doesn't impress me the way it seems to impress them. And the reason being is precisely what JB has given.

If we stop and think for a moment of what "natural selection" or "natural processes" even mean in this context, it should be come crystal clear that it only holds meaning with respect to the very nature of the unvierse to begin with. So it's utterly ludicous to hold that up as any kind of meaningful "explanation".

It's just an observation of what's going on "after the fact".

Once we recognize the universe as a dice toss (i.e. the unfolding of natural processes) then we must ask why the dice have the faces they have.

That's the part that these proponents of "Natural Processes" don't seem to get.

All they are doing is basically looking at dice tosses and saying, "We've figured out from looking at these tosses that the combinations of numbers we see will always be a Natural Result of any given toss."

So they accept that answer, and totally ignore the fact that the dice had to be designed in a particular way before that could even occur.

They're just ignoring the crux of the question.

So their answer to my question to explain HOW things evolve the way they do with the answer "naturalism" is a fallacy because it is a circular argument if they define "naturalism" as order without intent or purpose.

Evolution has no intent or purpose.

Evolution has no purpose.

*************************************************

So the question remains. If there is no intelligent design or purpose in the manifestation of the universe, if there is no "purposeful "cause of the universe, then how and why did it come to be and come to evolve as it has?

"Naturalism" is no explanation.

Anyone have any other answers?

Care to take a shot at it Shoku?