The Ontological Impossibility of Naturalism

Proving God and disproving naturalism with the communal ontology.

THE BAPTIZING PHILOSOPHY PODCAST:

HASHTAGS:
#philosophy #theology #metaphysics #ontology #orthodox #christianity #orthodoxchristianity #communion #church #jesus #christ #catholic #bible #hegel #negation #dialectics #epistemology #psychoanalysis #logic #ethics #theory #socialtheory #apologetics #God #aphesis #subjectivity #paradox #contradiction #reading #books #intellectual #conservative #politicaltheory #sigma #staniloae #trinity

[LukeTheGreat]

“naturalism” is a gaytheistic and soy materialist belief. thanks for dunking on the atheists again, very nice content

[MilliePlateau]

Everything is polycausal and contingent until we approach the One Cause.

[dunadan]

Oh, more on materialism. Another devastating blow: there is exactly nothing concrete about materialism.

Materialism actually reifies an abstraction, because in ordinary experience, we do not actually perceive atoms without quality. We perceive qualities like "big", "long", "red", "green", et cetera. If anything, idealism is actually more grounded, since it does say that the qualities we perceive in everyday life are not actually epiphenomenal illusions entirely constructed by the mind.

[dieselphiend]

Another way of saying that space, and time are relative to the observer, is 'simulated'. If that's the case, then it proves God's existence because it takes conscious intent (the first cause), to simulate anything.

[kurtrosenthal]

Just so you know the pic you used of the guy with the Dawkins book is actually satire. He’s actually an animator and works on the show smiling friends you should check it out.

[arthurwieczorek]

I hold that a 'first cause' is superfluous. I hold existence exists, and that to assume there is a cause for existence is nothing but a convenient rationalization for a mountain of bolony.

[cynicviper]

Why does it seem implausible that matter might produce mind but plausible that spirit (i.e., God or any non-physical entity) can create matter?
Now, if matter can create mind, reason is nothing but complex interactions of matter.
Further, does the naturalist need to presuppose causes. I suppose he does as a convenience, but strictly speaking, interactions need not be subsumed under cause and effect.
Nor does contingency ever need to be mentioned, as everything is both "contingent" on everything else and "necessary" as the product of deterministic processes.

I am not learned as you are on such matters, so please take any trivialities I might have typed as the result of my ignorance and not bad faith mocking.

I am not a naturalist myself, but I'm not a theist either. I agree that assuming the regularity of the cosmos (in itself) and that we actually have grasped such regularities (in addition) as uncalled for. However, I find it equally as bizarre that those answers are apparently so readily found in a book. (Which, to tell the truth, I haven't read in its entirety, but has anyone read every book?)

Now I understand, if one has a certain experience that aligns with what is written somewhere, that writing becomes more plausible, but myself, I fail to trust my own senses, so I doubt such an experience would have the same effect.

And good day to you!

[militaryenthusiast]

Argument from contingency is probably strongest argument for a first cause.

[AlexanderProcopis]

Would Monism essentially be the belief in a ground of being that isn’t necessarily personal, like the Neo-Platonic One?

[bittesla]

The universe in existence is the symphony orchestrated and conducted by the intelligent design of the creator, God.

[kenimaticjuggallo]

Very nice, could anyone recommend any books that further expand on this argument?

[xenocrates]

I always enjoy your posts and this one is no exception. Thanks.

[MiloMay]

May I ask what you're thoughts our on Paul Tillich, who argues that seeing God as a first cause, neccesary being etc... Makes us view God as a being instead of Being itself?

[kornelszecsi]

Something either has existence in itself or in an other. If everything would have an existence in an other, nothing would have existence in itself. But if this is the case nothing exists because nothing has existence. So there is something that has to have existence only in itself. Therfore something necessaraly pure existence without any limitation.

[francescaerreia]

This conflates naturalism with materialism. Our immaterial consciousness is perfectly natural.

As for god being the first cause, that’s baseless, special pleading, and an argument from ignorance. This argument has been demonstrated to be the silly thing it is for a long time and you just completely ignored the multitude of criticisms numerous people have made it against it over the years. You say you don’t know how the universe could’ve always existed therefore something else always existed… this magical answer you just made up which doesn’t have to follow the rules you already set for all things… just because you want it to… based on nothing at all.

That’s obviously not logical at all lol and I’m confident that that would be clear to you that was the case if you weren’t already committed to your conclusion before looking for arguments for it

[dunadan]

Additionally, while the attack on materialism is very good, there needs to be an equally vehement attack on nominalism, which this video does not do. Not enough people attack nominalism and it is unfortunate that a lot of religiously-minded people end up defaulting to crypto-nominalism as a way to justify their faith. Nominalism is linked to materialism and nominalism leads to the death of religion and of all culture. And yes, I have a burning hatred for nominalism, because many of the ills of the modern world can be traced to nominalism. Nominalism leads to materialism and nihilism because it basically denies that our minds can ever know the real what-ness of things. Matthew Raphael Johnson is right to call nominalism the ontology of death. Matthew Raphael Johnson is also right to say that some version of Platonic realism (I would argue that Orthodoxy is one of them) is the only real alternative to nominalism.

[cabe]

The Self-reflexivity argument is straight up not true. Particles are not just projectiles. atoms have desires (filling their valance shells) and exert force to achieve these desires (bonds/attraction). That sounds like a self-reflexive actor to me. We are a system of atoms -- A system of desires/actions down to our fundamental building blocks.

[samuiltenev]

Nevertheless, the causal approache to God is fruitless, because it portraits a unknowable dead god, that is somewhere there behind the chain of causes & ffects. Moreover, as you said: the natural approache of the stonehearted leaves him but a perception of infinite causality, leading him to monism. On the other hand, even by reaching the conclusion that there is a God, because there are created effects, we are no different than the gentils, who as well know that God is not like anything of the created, says st Gregorios o Palamas. Thus, the Transcendental argument rests the best noetic approache to explain the living God, in who's likness are the laws of the cosmos created. In the end, all reasonable predications of the Transcending all reason hyper essential God are in the bese case a candil, compaired to the sun of the personal communion. Those who know not God are fallen away from reason and their reason is foolish. They have eyes & will not see.

[davidkrdzavac]

I can't wait for that monism video. Good job on this one sir ☦️

[maxwellsimon]

If god is infinitely complicated and infinitely vast, then explaining him is just as ontologically impossible as naturalism. Just because we can't figure out every detail of the natural world or identify the first cause through naturalism doesn't mean it is a better explanation than god. I may be a bit behind, as I haven't seen all your videos yet, but there are a lot of unfounded claims you make that leave plenty of holes in your reasoning. Aside from that, great video, very thought provoking and interesting.

Christianity tells us god is the prime mover and source of existence.
Science tells us physical laws and quantum uncertainty explain our existence.
Buddhism tells us there is no essential core or explanation for our existence.

All philosophy is valuable.