Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[VVilliam]

Until somebody is first it's unreasonable to believe that morals come from natural processes.

Since there is no alternative to natural processes, it is unreasonable to believe morals don't come from natural processes.

I don't want to think of them as natura OR unnatural.

If relevant, how do you want to think of them?

If you disagree with the English meaning of those words; and if you disagree with the existence of those categories in people's minds - yours is the fringe belief.

Bandwagon fallacy.

You are the one using words/language idiosyncratically. Yours is the categorization schema which carries the burden of proof.

Show me something which is NOT natural, and we can discuss further.

[Skepdick]

Since there is no alternative to natural processes, it is unreasonable to believe morals don't come from natural processes.

Contradiction. As per the natural/unnatural distinction in English.

Both categories are inhabited.

If relevant, how do you want to think of them?

I want to think of them however English speakers think of them.

Bandwagon fallacy.

Contradiction. How can facts about how and what people think be fallacies?

Show me something which is NOT natural, and we can discuss further.

If you reject the existence of non-natural things a priori then no demonstration is possible. TO YOU.

You are just dogmatic.

Otherwise, anything which fails to satisfy the English definition of "natural" suffices as demonstration.

natural
/ˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Cars are NOT natural.
Science is NOT natural.

Q.E.D

[VVilliam]

I want to think of them however English speakers think of them.

Is it natural to think of them in this way?

natural
/ˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

It appears to be a type of claim that a "non-natural" thing is caused or created by a natural thing, using natural things in which to do so.
Perhaps "English speakers" and speakers of other languages want to view things that way, and make up language and definition to suit.

And what of language? "Natural" or "unnatural"?

Ultimately it appears that however we ( each personality ) "want to think about things" we will, even if it means making up words to "explain" how we want to think about things.

"Morals" themselves include morality, immorality and amorality.

Like words, we can argue that they are "made up" and therefore "not natural" but what is making these things up and bringing them into existence?

Minds are.

So are we to think of minds as also being "unnatural" if indeed the idea of cars, lightbulbs and even science are to be considered unnatural?

It is an interesting topic, this idea of unnatural things existing in nature. It has the quality of magical thinking - somewhat like the idea of supernatural "things" only "unnatural things" ( like science and cars and any other human made things) are evident.

Possibly the whole idea of the 'unnatural" stems from Materialist Philosophy.

[Skepdick]

I want to think of them however English speakers think of them.

Is it natural to think of them in this way?

natural
/ˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

It appears to be a type of claim that a "non-natural" thing is caused or created by a natural thing, using natural things in which to do so.
Perhaps "English speakers" and speakers of other languages want to view things that way, and make up language and definition to suit.

And what of language? "Natural" or "unnatural"?

Ultimately it appears that however we ( each personality ) "want to think about things" we will, even if it means making up words to "explain" how we want to think about things.

You are welcome to make up your own definitions for words.
You are also welcome to structure your mind however you feel like

Just don't get upset when people think you speak funny and you misinterpret/misunderstand things.

It is an interesting topic, this idea of unnatural things existing in nature. It has the quality of magical thinking - somewhat like the idea of supernatural "things" only "unnatural things" ( like science and cars and any other human made things) are evident.

This is but one of those examples where your definitions/misconceptions make you sound funny.

Thinking is magical/supernatural. By definition. There's nothing sinister about saying this.
Science can't explain how thinking works; or account for it in terms of the laws of nature. It satisfies the definitions of "magical" and "supernatural".

This should not be a contentious issue. It requires no debate/argument/conflict. And yet... when materialists misunderstand what those words mean because of their misconception (because they reject the magical/supernatural a priori) conflict happens anyway.

The sinnister connotation of "magical" and "supernatural" comes from the a priori presuppositions/biases of materialists.

Possibly the whole idea of the 'unnatural" stems from Materialist Philosophy.

It's the exact opposite actually. The erradication of the "unnatural" stems from materialism going too far in presupposing science is omniscient and will (eventually) explain everything. Including itself.

So there's no need; or use for the other category.

Materialism+atheism+scientism == harmful religion.

[Will Bouwman]

You didn't find it, and it isn't a law.

Oh good! So you have evidence for its violation? Evidence which would falsify my hypothesis and prove it wrong?

Awesome stuff!

Produce the reduction.

I don't have to; you 'law' is not a law. Cranks like you think that because no one can prove your fruitloopery wrong, you are right.

The hard of thinking sometimes make the mistake that because 'Either God exists or he doesn't' is true, somehow everyone is committed to believing either/or.

You are welcome to believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster for all I care.

And you can believe your 'law' is a law. Should anyone actually believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster, they can make the same argument as you.

But in the realm of science where evidence matters either you have evidence for reducibility; or you don't.

In the absence of evidence the most plausible hypothesis remains: irreducible complexity.

Therefore Flying Spaghetti monster. The joke has clearly gone over your head.

[Skepdick]

I don't have to; you 'law' is not a law.

Of course you have to. That's how falsification works. The bar is really really low - if it's not a law then violate it with counter-evidence.

Why can't you?

Cranks like you think that because no one can prove your fruitloopery wrong, you are right.

Yes. That's how science works. It agrees with experiment; it resists all efforts of falsification. It's a law. Do you want me to understand Feynman's video for you?

Do you want me to understand Einstein for you?

it can only be hoped that German science will not again be embarrassed by such sad scribblings” and Einstein said, in response to the book, that if he were wrong, then one author would have been enough.

If my law is not a law then falsify it. Just a single counter-example would be enough.

Why all this lip service?

And you can believe your 'law' is a law. Should anyone actually believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster, they can make the same argument as you.

False equivalence.

For a "philosopher of science" you sure can't seem to tell the difference between falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims.

My claim may be wrong. All you need to demonstrate it's wrong is counter-evidence. Until then - it holds.

The Flying Spaghetti monster is not even wrong.

But in the realm of science where evidence matters either you have evidence for reducibility; or you don't.

In the absence of evidence the most plausible hypothesis remains: irreducible complexity.

Therefore Flying Spaghetti monster. The joke has clearly gone over your head.

Idiot philosopher is an idiot.

Continued failed attempts to reduce complexity therefore irreducible complexity until a successful reduction is produced.

If you want to add another "therefore" layer after that - you are welcome to call it God; or Flying Spaghetti monster.

In fact, here's what I am going to call it: Will Bouwman may be a philosopher of science, but he's still a fucking joke.

[Will Bouwman]

Continued failed attempts to reduce complexity therefore irreducible complexity until a successful reduction is produced.

No. Continued failed attempts to reduce complexity therefore irreducible complexity can be considered an underdetermined hypothesis until a successful reduction is produced.

If you want to add another "therefore" layer after that - you are welcome to call it God; or Flying Spaghetti monster.

In fact, here's what I am going to call it: Will Bouwman may be a philosopher of science, but he's still a fucking joke.

One who at least understands jokes.

[Skepdick]

Continued failed attempts to reduce complexity therefore irreducible complexity until a successful reduction is produced.

No. Continued failed attempts to reduce complexity therefore irreducible complexity can be considered an underdetermined hypothesis until a successful reduction is produced.

It's not a hypothesis. It's a theory - backed by the entirety of scientific history. No attempt to produce a reduction has succeeded.
Thus the "irreducibility" prediction is affirmed.

Until a reduction is produced the testable and falsfifiable theory remains unfalsified.

One who at least understands jokes.

If you understood jokes you'd understand yourself.

You don't seem to understand the laws and limits of epistemology...

[VVilliam]

Thinking is magical/supernatural. By definition. There's nothing sinister about saying this.
Science can't explain how thinking works; or account for it in terms of the laws of nature. It satisfies the definitions of "magical" and "supernatural".

This should not be a contentious issue. It requires no debate/argument/conflict. And yet... when materialists misunderstand what those words mean because of their misconception (because they reject the magical/supernatural a priori) conflict happens anyway.

This age old warfare between Supernaturalist Philosophy and Materialist Philosophy continues because neither side can see any alternative on offer other than those two apparently irreconcilable positions.

I have no horse in that particular race. ( No fight in that particular war. )

I follow a different path.

[Skepdick]

This age old warfare between Supernaturalist Philosophy and Materialist Philosophy continues because neither side can see any alternative on offer other than those two apparently irreconcilable positions.

I have no horse in that particular race. ( No fight in that particular war. )

I follow a different path.

I think it's pretty trivial to reconcile outside of Philosophy and within actual society. Language evolves without central authority and without any particular faction exerting undue influence on the process - it's a pretty democratic and self-organising system.

The materialists are wrong. Of course they might rebel/object and insist on making everybody else adopt their concepts/language/definitions/world-view and impose on other people's freedoms.

Fuck them...

[VVilliam]

This age old warfare between Supernaturalist Philosophy and Materialist Philosophy continues because neither side can see any alternative on offer other than those two apparently irreconcilable positions.

I have no horse in that particular race. ( No fight in that particular war. )

I follow a different path.

I think it's pretty trivial to reconcile outside of Philosophy and within actual society. Language evolves without central authority and without any particular faction exerting undue influence on the process - it's a pretty democratic and self-organising system.

The materialists are wrong. Of course they might rebel/object and insist on making everybody else adopt their concepts/language/definitions/world-view and impose on other people's freedoms.

Fuck them...

That is your journey.

My own has shown me there is correct and incorrect on both "sides" and my philosophical position is on a bridge which spans the void between these factions.

As such, there is no "Fuck Them" in the bridging philosophy language, although I do acknowledge that these are expressions which can and do come from both Supernaturalist and Materialist philosophies are "fighting words" revealing the war-faring nature of the supporters of said philosophies.

[Will Bouwman]

No attempt to produce a reduction has succeeded.
Thus the "irreducibility" prediction is affirmed.

You're an idiot. That is no more true than this:

If I knew how it works then it would be reducible.
It's irreducible because I don't know how it works.

Or this:

"Impossible" simply means NOT possible. And I say that it's NOT possible because I haven't seen anybody do it.

[Skepdick]

No attempt to produce a reduction has succeeded.
Thus the "irreducibility" prediction is affirmed.

You're an idiot. That is no more true than this:

If I knew how it works then it would be reducible.
It's irreducible because I don't know how it works.

Or this:

"Impossible" simply means NOT possible. And I say that it's NOT possible because I haven't seen anybody do it.

So much lip service - so little counter-evidence to demonstrate falsehood.

[Will Bouwman]

So much lip service - so little counter-evidence to demonstrate falsehood.

You're an idiot. I am not claiming falsehood:

Continued failed attempts to reduce complexity therefore irreducible complexity until a successful reduction is produced.

No. Continued failed attempts to reduce complexity therefore irreducible complexity can be considered an underdetermined hypothesis until a successful reduction is produced.

[Skepdick]

So much lip service - so little counter-evidence to demonstrate falsehood.

You're an idiot. I am not claiming falsehood

Then you must be claiming truth! How many times must I remind you of the Excluded Middle?

Continued failed attempts to reduce complexity therefore irreducible complexity until a successful reduction is produced.

No. Continued failed attempts to reduce complexity therefore irreducible complexity can be considered an underdetermined hypothesis until a successful reduction is produced.

"Until" implies from now until the infinity of time. Why do you believe a successful reduction will ever be produced even with infinite time? That's just blind scientism - time of the gaps argument. It's not even wrong. It's maybe right, on faith not evidence.

Lets side-step the infinity, shall we?

Lets say that irreducible complexity is an oevrdetermined hypothesis unless a successful reduction is produced.