A Refusal to Admit That Any Other Explanations Exist

June 17, 2010

What would it take for you to accept any particular event as supernatural? If you saw a man walk on water, would you search for a natural explanation? And even if you never found one would you be persuaded that there must be one anyway? If you saw a man killed (clearly dead) and buried …and then saw him risen a few days later, would you search for a natural explanation and in the absence of said explanation, would you be persuaded that a natural reason must still be there?

The problem with the overriding assumption of naturalism is that it is blinding. It assumes that all things happen naturally and refuses to admit that any other explanations exist.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “A Refusal to Admit That Any Other Explanations Exist”

  1. jen Says:

    That is so true. It goes to show that naturalism is as much of a belief system as any other religion.

  2. Adam Says:

    “Assuming naturalism” argument;
    {complexity implies design}.

    Error!: Complexity does not imply design.
    Esp.:
    (1) Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity, natural laws imply only themselves.
    (2) Nonrandom events are known to take place without sentient intervention.
    (3) Insertion of a sentient entity into the solution increases the complexity of the scenario, since a creator must be at least as complex as the universe. Complexity in solutions must be limited.

    “… and refuses to admit that any other explanations exist.” argument;
    {supernaturalism is feasible}.

    Error!: Supernaturalism is infeasible.
    Esp.:
    (1) Definition of the supernatural comprises that it has no explanation or evidence. If something has no explanation or evidence, there is no reason to assert it.
    (2) From (1), it is found that any assertion of supernaturalism or the occurrence of a miracle, would amount to ipse-dixitism.

  3. W. Vida Says:

    Hi Adam, I actually never made the case that complexity implies design. I do believe that this case can be made but this is not what this post is about. This post is about the unfalsifiable nature of naturalism. It is a philosophy that can not be falsified. Which is ironic because that is the exact critique that many atheists have of Theism.

  4. Adam Says:

    The image posted clearly represents the teleological argument (complexity implies design).

    “It is a philosophy that can not be falsified.” argument;
    {naturalism is not falsifiable}.

    If we do not base knowledge upon reproducible observation and deductive reasoning, what do we base it upon?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: