tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post816417524131749015..comments2024-03-14T08:15:15.207-07:00Comments on CADRE Comments: An Archetypal Naturalistic Ontology Argument (presented for consideration)BKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-16337360065714089972007-11-09T13:27:00.000-08:002007-11-09T13:27:00.000-08:00{{What I meant was inexplicable in principle by na...{{What I meant was inexplicable in principle by naturalism as you mentioned.}}<BR/><BR/>In which case "by corollary, supernaturalism of some sort must be true. (Or the details don't really exist, perhaps.)" Or, putting it another way (and as in my original post) "accepting supernaturalism instead, if an argument to this notion cannot be effectively countered _and_ if the naturalist accepts the Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-17605552542499695972007-11-09T10:25:00.000-08:002007-11-09T10:25:00.000-08:00Jason,What I meant was inexplicable in principle b...Jason,<BR/><BR/>What I meant was inexplicable in principle by naturalism as you mentioned. I'm still not seeing how one goes from point 3 to point 4. It seems to me the proper point of departure is at 3 where both sides have to provide ground, not jumping to four and just requiring that of supernaturalism. Otherwise, the naturalist can just take the easy out and assume naturalism will eventually Mark K. Sprengelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07333580426829706814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-81532483088310854492007-11-08T06:05:00.000-08:002007-11-08T06:05:00.000-08:00I think it's a matter of progression or lack of pr...I think it's a matter of progression or lack of progression. I use the word "default", but not in any simplistic way: several positions are already considered and rejected before getting to this point, and the way is not simply barred from moving onward. A meaningful dialectic with the technical possibility of the naturalist deciding supernaturalism is true, is included and expected. The positionJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-24603441090869204062007-11-07T20:37:00.000-08:002007-11-07T20:37:00.000-08:00Yeah, Mark's comment is what I feel like you're sa...Yeah, Mark's comment is what I feel like you're saying too, which seems odd to me.Lesliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05454747871999481708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-24496353205792944682007-11-07T16:45:00.000-08:002007-11-07T16:45:00.000-08:00So the naturalist position is the default while st...So the naturalist position is the default while still not able to explain all the features of the "natural" world?Mark K. Sprengelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07333580426829706814noreply@blogger.com