madmax2976

I think thomas has missed the point here entirely, as it has been stated clearly by others and myself.

There is no "1 down" or "2 down" here at all. The characterizations he has offered for "naturalistic" hypotheses have never appeared in any literature by any naturalist I have ever read. It quite easy to set up a straw man and contend you have somehow made a valid point. That's all I've seen thomas do here so far - beat up straw men.

Corrections to his characterizations have been offered, and so have alternative hypotheses. From what I've seen, thomas has not addressed any of these issues. Until he does, his attempted critique of naturalism will remain invalid.

TheGreatInfidel

I was just cruising and I noticed an allusion (somewhere) that if something isn't rational then it's irrational. Perhaps this has already been pointed out, but I thought I would also. Arationality is also possible. Irrationality, is when someone misuses what is already known to draw fallicious conclusions (or something along those lines). Arationality, is when rationality isn't applied at all (or something along those lines). The reason I point it out is because I realize theists love to draw the false dichotomy that something is either rational or irrationa.

Luiseach

That's a very good point to make about definitions of 'rational,' 'irrational' and 'arational'....hmmm I actually never thought of it as a false dichotomy...thanks for that! (although it wasn't addressed to me....)

***but I wonder how we go about not applying rationality to something, if you know what I mean...I'll have to think about this.

TheGreatInfidel

Well humans can be rational, irrational, and arational. An example of something that is arational is pain. Pain, the sensation of pain itself, is arational. THere is no application of reason to it at all.


Reason is applied to pain when we try to *infer* something from it, and depending on whether our reasoning is valid we'll be rational or irrational, but the sensation of pain itself is arational.


Rocks can't be rational nor irrational, they can't apply reason; they don't have the capacity. Rocks are arational.

What I'm trying to say is that it's a categorical mistake to try to expect rationality from something that is arational. Minds can be rational or irrational but inanimate objects cannot. So, if the universe is not a mind, then it's silly to expect it to be rational.

Hawkingfan

How about "Which of thomaq's propositions is the most reasonable to believe?" You can say unreasonable. But areasonable?

TheGreatInfidel

I just want add another thing. If it's the case that naturalism hasn't provided explanations or reasons for something, this need not imply that naturalism is irrational. A view can only be irrational to the extent that it draws fallicious conclusions, but where no conclusions have been drawn, i.e., where no explanatory hypothesis has been drawn about something, then it isn't irrational.

I'm way late in this thread so if I'm simply reiterating something that was already mentioned, disregard this message.

Hawkingfan

tomaq,
There are some good conversations starting up now regarding the scientific aspect in Science and Skepticism. Jesse returned from a trip to New York and has answered questions regarding this in two threads: Origin of Time and Space, and Naturalism and the Big Bang. If you're still interested...

thomaq

i am constantly wanting to hear more options than what i offered in my OP. i personally cant think of any, but i am open to hear some. my only claim is that, as of now, those 3 options are irrational, not necessarily naturalism as a whole. yes, the name of the thread is "Naturalism Irrational?" i chose this phrase because -"the three options that i know about for a naturalist explanation for the universe are irrational"- was a little too long.

now, any corrections that have been made to one of the options have done nothing except move them into a different option. for example, victor stenger does not apply to option (1). he uses the term "nothing", but he uses it to actually mean "something" which moves him into either option 2a or 2b.
show me one straw man that i have set up and knock down. its just not the case. when you make these accusations you should be more specific. and also, i am one person trying to discuss/debate about 6 people, i sometimes have to actually get some work done (as i'm sure we all do) and so i cant always respond. but if there are any specific things that you personally want me to respond to, please reference it or re-quote it and i'll give it a shot.
i am still working on responding to your previous post. there was alot in it so it might take me a while.

acronos

This is not convincing to me. Is it logically possible for a line to start at a point and be infinitely long? It is to me. Infinity’s require at least ONE open endpoint. They do not require TWO open endpoints. A line doesn’t have to extend in both directions to infinity; it can extend in only one and still be infinitely long. Our very number system is an example of it. Our numbers start at 0 and go to positive infinity. They also start at 0 and go to negative infinity. I would not be able to count from one to two if it were impossible to traverse infinity.

As proof you said, “If an infinite amount of moments have to pass before we can get to the present, when will we arrive at the present?” The question you should ask is, “If we are at the present, how many moments have passed for us to get here?” As several others have told you, your original question requires a starting point at the beginning of time and correctly assumes there can be no end point if the answer is infinite. However, we know in reality that now is an endpoint. So, we have a start point and and end point, we don't have infinity. The original question was, do we have a start point? This is something we did not know ahead of time so the only correct way to word the question is, “If we are at the present, how many moments have passed for us to get here?” It is logically possible for the answer to this question to be an infinite number.

If an infinite amount of standing people had to sit down before I could sit down, when would I sit down? Never is correct. However, by wording the problem as you did, you defined the starting point for the count at the beginning of the infinity, and that is where you are confused.

acronos

To me, the point is that your argument, as stated, is meaningless, rather than agreeing with you that there is a contradiction in such a world view.