Methodological Naturalism is fallacious

Here's my standard. Take any KNOWN design, and compare it with a similar design in nature.My radio-controlled helicopter is 60 grams, and can NOT deal with a slight breeze, despite being a good thoughtful, mechanical device.Meanwhile, a hover fly is 1% of 1 gram, and I observed it hover in a brisk breeze.Now logically, if a designer designed the lesser design, tell me why I should assume that the grand design would not require a designer.Try answering my questions for once, instead of asking, asking, asking.HOW does a designer NOT follow design.YOU HAVE BIG BIG PROBLEMS GUYS

It is a non-issue until evidence there is a creator is supplied. Why should I even consider such a thing if there is no evidence for it.Try thisThe fallacy is that if the IPU's existence cannot be ascertained, you logically cannot conclude that the IPU is out.Think about the underlined part properly.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

MESSAGE 15 CONTAINS A LOT OF THINGS UNSAID, AND I REASONABLY NOMINATE IT AS MY RESPONSE TO ANY FURTHER POSTS-- My personal views on the conclusion of the topic. I still think methodological naturalism was, an attitude. People wanted to say, "how about not having supernatural answers?"To me - that's a fair thing to proceed with, but I do not think that organisms can be denied. Let's face it - animated matter? What WOULD constitue a miracle, if not this? This is beyond amazing. Shame you can't see it as the truism it is.(BTW, evolutionary scientists admitt design, but not necessarily a designer, despite it being the best answer for the facts.)Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I have discussed it before. Compositionally, I can break down the IPU as being a vacuous invented item, invoked for the purpose of argument. This does not "remove" design in organisms. I do not want to discuss the IPU and it's compositional problems, ad nausueam.

So you cannot objectively differentiate between that which is designed and that which is not then?

How is what I posted any different then what you posted? Provide evidence of this designer. Can you?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

I have thought it all through, indeed, beyond your weak response.

---

Then you know that you were wrong ?

quote:

---

The original point remains. It is still fallacious to proceed, " all it states is that science restricts itself to natural explanations ".

---

So pointing out the correct definition of Methodological Naturalism is "fallacious" now ?

quote:

---

Logically this leads to ALL claims now being fallacious, so you make a moot point about it not being fallacious because one is still not allowed to conclude or include God. Try again.

---

No, it doesn't make any claims fallacious. You simply haven't thought it through at all.

quote:

---

I believe in parsimony, it is not the same thing. You should have not assumed I did not know what I was saying.

---

I know that parsimony is not the same thing. But what you state was not parsimony. You recognised that God has no place in scientific explanations - and that is methodological naturalism. And no, I did not assume that you did not know what you were talking about - I observed it

quote:

---

The point is that you can not know that the conclusion is true, if you ommit a potential truth.

---

That may have been what you meant but it is certainly not what you said.

quote:

---

If we have a murder, and we disregard a murderer, we guarantee a false conclusion that the knife-did-it, which is analogous to the truism of design requiring a designer, where design is obvious.

---

Except, of course, that we are not talking about cases where design is truly obvious. And design requiring a designer works two ways. In the absence of any other evidence of a potential designer we should be wary of concluding design (and that IS parsimony).

quote:

---

Your bit about the ferrari is vacuous because the point is that there is obviously a designer, where there is a design. You are bound to come to a false conclusion if you dismiss the possibility of a designer.

---

Clearly you failed to understand it. Neither Methodological Naturalism nor failing to assume the existence of a designer will lead us to the wrong conclusion in the case of the Ferrarri. Why then would these things cause us to come to the wrong conclusion when dealing with life ?

quote:

---

Now, with organisms, the "design" is much more sophisticated, therefore we can safely conclude that the problem is much, much greater because if you are going to assume the necessity of a designer is not there, and go for a natural approach, then you have a very weak syllogism, because of the pressure from designs.

---

You are being very unclear. There is no need to "assume that the necessity of a designer is not there" - because that necessity must be shown (it cannot itself be assumed). And it has not been shown. Moreover, science is not a competition in jumping to conclusions. Evolution is a vastly successful framework for investigating biology. Any competitor needs to show that it can do as well.

quote:

---

I am unrefuted because it is fallacious to rule out a possible conclusion whether you state it or not.

---

You are refuted because MN does not rule out any conclusions. MN is Methodological Naturalism and it is a limit of the scientific method. It is philosophical or ontological Naturalism that rule out God.

hahaha. "evidence" is the weak consequent in a modus ponen form, because of the power of tollens, to falsify. Therefore I do not claim any evidence, in the knowledge of how weak it is. I infact call on facts.The designs in organisms, no matter what anyone says, are excellent, and therefore we have what is called a truism of design. Therefore, logically, a designer reasonably follows.There is lots of evidence for false theories by the way - otherwise, I ask you this; how could they have been dismissed, if they were not for a time accepted? Therein lies the key to this problem; that being that "evidence" only makes a theory viable. I am not stating theory - but I see with my eyes the facts before me. My whole being cannot deny that which is before my eyes.therefore i have no evidence, i have something far greater!MESSAGE 15 PLEASE now guys, you are too keen to swamp me. I understand, but I am only one man.

FStDT ...

No - the burden of proof is not upon me when design is a truism even evolutionary scientists know of!! The burden is to prove that a designer does not follow.The only genuine reason that I can think of to dismiss a designer, is because you don't want Him to be there. It was a position of naturalists in the past to promote and find a way of explaining things without the supernatural, but that does not grant a logical permission slip. You have one power - parsimony, and a freedom to conclude anything. EXCEPT a designer.Think about it again, what I said in message 15 - you do not need to refuse a designer for a theory of sex, because of observable fact, and because it does not rule out a special creator. Evolution does, even though nobody knows for sure if the special creator existed. It is an obvious flaw and difference. Why deny it? Because if you accept one thing I say, you think you might have to accept more things I say. Do you really seek truth? Admitt the flaw is there. There is a difference, do not lie.Can't you see that the fallacious goes underneathe, and comes out on top. You can't hide it from wisdom. It is there - the conclusion of a none-designer based on naturalist-bias.Sorry i provoked you - but you say things like, "you clearly haven't thought it htrough", and it annoys me. Why do you feel the need to provoke me to anger, when I know I have thought it through, and that YOU know that I am thoughtful?Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Excellent. You need glasses. What is so excellent about myopia, cancer, PAD, lack of an enzyzme to break down cholesterol, autism, etc.
Good design would not have so many flaws, excellent design would have none.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

It is fallacious to rule out a possible conclusion for which there is absolutely no evidence, as opposed to a conclusion that fits all the evidence observed to date?(Nice work if you can get it. Is that creation "science" or what?)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

ok guys - WHY, given how brilliant organisms are, should I assume the very great assumption of methodological naturalism?

---

As I have pointed out methodological naturalism is not an assumption, it is a method.

quote:

---

With theories on origins, the fallacy is relevant BECAUSE you have to assume a great many things that are not repeatable, because of history not being repeatable.

---

The exact events cannot be repeated (or rather we cannot know that we are repeating them) but this is not the issue. We can work out explanations for how things might have occurred. We can certainly try to make those explanations testable - and then test them.It is parsimony, not methodological naturalism that stops the jump to the design conclusion.

quote:

---

The fallacy is that if God's existence cannot be ascertained, you cannot logically conclude that a special creator is OUT.

​

Think about the underlined part properly.

---

I have thought about it and the correct answer is "so what?". Nobody insists that they have a logical disproof of a creator. And Methodological Naturalism says that science CANNOT disprove the existence of God. I suggest you go back to my initial response and consider it properly.

If you cannot even differentiate between that which is designed in nature and that which is not then I fail to see how any claim of a designer has any validity at all?Can you give me an example of something in nature that is definitely NOT designed?

No - you need to think before saying things about me. Logically, they are excellent designs, but very nasty, unpleasant realities. There is a difference.There is a biblical explanation known as the "curse" or the "fall". You ahve NOT thought about the logical difference between internal consistency and exterior effects.example - heart disease because of eating badly. This is not a design problem with the heart. The diseases aren't design-problems, they are effective in their task.Appealing to a benevolent creator is not relevant to biblical theism, only philosophical theism because philosophical theism does not help the "problem of evil".