Nat Relat

Naturalism (+Relational Ontology) is the best explanation for reality as we know it.

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@theThinkInst I agree. Atheists that try to avoid logic being transcendental by introducing other systems are fooling themselves.

I don't know of any reason this points to God because grounding the classical laws of logic is very easy on Naturalism but you're right on this point.

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@ericmetaxas Better left unsaid….he says on the internet.

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@MikeFromHC @RayComfort Agreed. His apologetics are just expressions of his own dogma

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@TherionWare @darwintojesus very well said

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@ericmetaxas This form of Christianity will surely fade away.

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@JesusisKing59 Hi, this is how myths are created.

Hope this helps.

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@RealJackHibbs This form of Christianity will surely die. How long can this ideological cult survive in a diverse and connected world?

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@howertonjosh Beware of the all-loving god!

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@DPadenAkaterry You’re essentially describing might makes right. Sure, god “can” do whatever he wants, but that doesn’t mean whatever he does is good.

God could be evil and still do whatever he wants. (And he probably is)

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@darwintojesus An end, goal, or final aim.
Can be applied to entities or actions. And I’d follow Aristotle and say the telos for humans is something like well-being/flourishing.

Naturally, I do not use it in the Christian theology sense to mean gods plan

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

I’m reading “The Jesus Problem” by J M Robertson 1917 - and wowww. He offers an extremely compelling argument for Jesus being a mythical character.

Has anyone else read his work?

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@BuenoForMiami Yes of course.
We have every reason, in this life, to do good. It is its own reward.

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

The implication is that "know" means to be absolutely certain about something, which is common in ideological religious worldviews, but ignores the (obvious) fact that doing science involves significant abductive and inductive reasoning.

And that the test of a scientific explanation is its testability, repeatability, and prediction power. We don't simply measure it against whether or not we can deductively rule out every alternative or exception.

It is specifically it's provisional stance to claims, the fact that it is corrigible, that makes it so powerful.

Even in trying to score points against the worldview of "atheism," you demonstrate the short sightedness and dogmatic nature of your own view...which ironically is at odds with doing science.

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

Yes, we reject your understanding and framing of those things. That is not the same as rejecting those things outright.

Meaning, for example, cannot be decreed by an external source...that's not how value works. And telos is perfectly coherent without a transcendent mind.

I'd grant that we don't have "fundamental purpose" in the way I think you mean it, but why should we need or want that if we have meaning and telos without it?

I respect that you have a particular theist view, but your definitions and your metaphysics do not constrain my view.

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

1 - There is no evidence of God and no reason to think it "came from" anywhere. The best explanation is that nature is necessary
2 - it's "deduction" if you frame it as "intricate design" which is begging the question about a designer
3 - science has many ways to demonstrate this - a snowflake from a storm is one very simple example. But importantly, "chaos" doesn't mean that there is no structure to nature. Natural laws guide chaotic things into order, like when I shake a box the parts inside begin to organize based on weight and size.
4 - my point was that if you think mindfulness can't come from mindlessness, then why would you believe that mindlessness can come from mindfulness?
You either think it's a real categorical boundary, or you dont. But regardless, panpsychism would solve that without God so the point doesn't support theism anyway

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@theThinkInst Take my "feelings" out of it and it's still circular

[Nat Relat @NatRelat]

@howertonjosh Hey guys, this is just called growing up. You don’t need Jesus to be fulfilled and live a meaningful life of meaning and purpose.