# I just found out I've been presupposing naturalism my whole life. Is this a fallacy?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [August 14, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693 "2011-08-14T16:39:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/81 "2011-08-16T20:17:33Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> No, this doesn’t make anything possible. It just makes us uncertain whether it was possible or not. It was just as impossible to exceed c in 1650 as in 1950.
If man cannot rule out alternatives with 100% certainty, then it is possible those alternatives are true. Our lack of complete knowledge about everything renders alternatives possible.
Scientists cannot claim with 100% certainty that at no time in 1650 or 1950 did anything which exceeded the speed of light. As a result of being incapable of ruling this out with 100% certainty, and this incapability in part being the result of a lack of complete knowledge about everything, then it is possible something existed which exceeded the speed of light in 1650 or 1950.
I would be most interested to know how exactly you deduce it was not possible, i.e. impossible, for anything to exceed the speed of light in 1650 and 1950?
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/82 "2011-08-16T20:27:23Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#):
>
> If man cannot rule out alternatives with 100% certainty, then it is possible those alternatives are true. Our lack of complete knowledge about everything renders alternatives possible.
It is more probable that there will be a murderer hiding in your closet when you wake up tomorrow morning then there is for any supernatural event to exist. How much time do you plan to spend thinking about the (possible) murderer in your closet tonight?
---
### Author:  [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/83 "2011-08-17T14:10:23Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#):
>
> How many unicorns are there in your garage?
>
> All a posteriori knowledge is provisional. And yet we go about our lives nonetheless.
You are right, we do "go about our lives,"so what is your point? I never said anything to suggest we cannot “go about our lives” although we lack complete knowledge.
---
### Author:  [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/84 "2011-08-18T03:17:47Z")
> [@wevets](#):
>
> The important distinction is really not between naturalism and supernaturalism,
The distinction is of the utmost importance to anyone who believes in God!
I suspect the OP’s Mr. Johnson had exactly that- God- in mind when he took
umbrage at his addressee’s naturalistic view of reality.
> [@wevets](#):
>
> …since supernaturalism is a vague term - what’s supernatural anyway?
There is nothing vague about it.
Limiting the case to the omnipotent Abrahamic God, He created the scientific
Laws of Nature, but is not restricted by them. For example, although mice and
men cannot, as a matter of scientific law, exceed the Speed of Light, God can:
He may take physical presence anywhere from one end of the Universe to the
other instantaneously and simultaneously, and He knows everything everywhere
taking place regardless of what form He chooses to assume for Himself, and where
He chooses to assume it.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/85 "2011-08-18T04:15:58Z")
> [@colonial](#):
>
> Limiting the case to the omnipotent Abrahamic God, He created the scientific Laws of Nature, but is not restricted by them. For example, although mice and men cannot, as a matter of scientific law, exceed the Speed of Light, God can: He may take physical presence anywhere from one end of the Universe to the other instantaneously and simultaneously, and He knows everything everywhere taking place regardless of what form He chooses to assume for Himself, and whereHe chooses to assume it.
Cite?
---
### Author:  [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/86 "2011-08-18T04:51:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Cite?
What do you mean cite?
The Abraham god is considered omnipotent by almost all Abrahamic sects,
isn’t He? nd omnipotence conveys the ability to transcend the Laws of Nature,
doesn’t it?
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/87 "2011-08-18T04:56:54Z")
> [@colonial](#):
>
> What do you mean cite?
>
> The Abraham god is considered omnipotent by almost all Abrahamic sects,
> isn’t He? nd omnipotence conveys the ability to transcend the Laws of Nature,
> doesn’t it?
Maybe “omnipotence” means being able to do anything and everything the laws of nature allow?
---
### Author:  [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/88 "2011-08-18T05:18:14Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Maybe “omnipotence” means being able to do anything and everything the laws of nature allow?
No, it means the ability to transcend them, as depicted by numerous miraculous
scriptural episodes, going back to such things as the Burning Bush and beyond.
God is NOT the creature of the Laws of Nature; they are _His_ creatures.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/89 "2011-08-18T05:24:51Z")
> [@colonial](#):
>
> No, it means the ability to transcend them, as depicted by numerous miraculous
> scriptural episodes, going back to such things as the Burning Bush and beyond.
>
> God is NOT the creature of the Laws of Nature; they are _His_ creatures.
I see. Your stories are your cite.
---
### Author:  [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/90 "2011-08-18T06:12:23Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> I see. Your stories are your cite.
What I see, in you, is someone who has somehow missed a foundation tenet
of the world’s two largest religions. What I have related is not a collection of
“stories”, it is what anyone with a mere passing knowledge of intellectual history
should know.
Since you will not be happy without your “cite”, here:
[Catholic Encyclopedia on God and the Universe](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06614a.htm)
(from link, emphasis added):
> [@](#):
>
> In developing the argument of the First Cause we have seen that **the world is essentially dependent on God, and this dependence implies in the first place that God is the Creator of the world — the producer of its whole being or substance — and in the next place, supposing its production, that its continuance in being at every moment is due to His sustaining power.** Creation means _the total production of a being out of nothing_, i.e. the bringing of a being into existence to replace absolute nonexistence, and the relation of Creator is the only conceivable relation in which the Infinite can stand to the finite…
>
> However wonderful we may consider the universe to be, we recognize **that neither in its substance nor in the laws by which its order is maintained,** in so far as unaided reason can come to laws them, **does it exhaust God’s infinite power or perfectly reveal His nature.**
And here:
[Catholic Encyclopedia on Miracles](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm)
(from link, emphasis added):
> [@](#):
>
> A **miracle** is said to be **above nature** \*\* when the effect produced is above the native powers and forces in creatures of which the known laws\*\*\*\* of nature are the expression, as raising a dead man to life\*\*\*\*,\*\* e.g., Lazarus (John 11), the widow’s son (! King’s 7). **A miracle is said to be outside, or beside, nature when natural forces may have the power to produce the effect, at least in part, but could not of themselves alone have produced it** in the way it was actually brought about. **Thus the effect in abundance far exceeds the power of natural forces, or it takes place instantaneously without the means or processes which nature employs.**
There is no doubt of the existence of numerous mainstream Protestant, Orthodox
and Muslim sources which convey exactly the same beliefs.
---
### Author:  [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/91 "2011-08-18T07:05:42Z")
> [@colonial](#):
>
> No, it means the ability to transcend them, as depicted by numerous miraculous
> scriptural episodes, going back to such things as the Burning Bush and beyond.
The Burning Bush never happened. Moses is as fictional a character as Hercules.
---
### Author:  [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/92 "2011-08-18T07:51:30Z")
My motivation for entering this thread was only to affirm the importance
of supernatural characters and events in the perception of vast numbers
of people. I myself seriously doubt the existence of anything supernatural.
Furthermore, I do not think an omnipotent god could also be benevolent,
on the evidence of the impact upon us of the crueller forces of Nature.
So much misery has afflicted us, so easily preventable by One of infinite power.
And finally, if God is our Father then it is incumbent upon Him to protect
us even from ourselves, as it would be incumbent for any human father
to intervene if his children set upon each other in violence.
If He exists \*He \*has sinned against _us_. Better pray He does not exist, for we
would be at his Unholy mercy.
> [@MrDibble](#):
>
> The Burning Bush never happened.
I agree.
> [@MrDibble](#):
>
> Moses is as fictional a character as Hercules.
I tend to think Moses was probably historical, although the Biblical details
are certainly almost all myth.
---
### Author:  [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/93 "2011-08-18T11:29:23Z")
> [@colonial](#):
>
> I tend to think Moses was probably historical, although the Biblical details
> are certainly almost all myth.
Based on what evidence? The Exodus clearly never happened, so where does Moses even fit in? David, Solomon, these I can see a case for. Moses, not at all.
---
### Author:  [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/94 "2011-08-18T12:56:03Z")
Well, “Based on a real person” covers a lot of territory.
For instance, the fictional character of Santa Claus was based on a real person. This real person, however, did not wear a red suit, did not live at the north pole, did not have a toyshop full of elves, did not drive a sleigh with 8 tiny reindeer, and was not named Santa Claus. According to legend the real person is supposed to have given people secret gifts, but we have no way of knowing if that legend is true, or if it’s the same sort of thing as George Washington chopping down the cherry tree.
So if there is a “real Santa Claus”, but the real Santa Claus is an accountant who lives in Miami, has no beard, hates children, and never gives presents, what does it even mean when I claim that this person is the real Santa Claus?
---
### Author:  [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/95 "2011-08-18T14:54:38Z")
> [@colonial](#):
>
> I myself seriously doubt the existence of anything supernatural.
> [@colonial](#):
>
> There is nothing vague about it.
>
> Limiting the case to the omnipotent Abrahamic God, He created the scientific
> Laws of Nature, but is not restricted by them. For example, although mice and
> men cannot, as a matter of scientific law, exceed the Speed of Light, God can:
He certainly can’t if the manner of his existence is that he is believed in, but has no existence outside the mind of the believers.
The problem of vagueness that I refer to is that God gets to be all sorts of things depending on who you ask - responsible for the saving of 3 people from a plane crash, but not the deaths of the 220 other people on the flight; responsible for a star runningback’s success, but completely unconcerned with the individual affairs of the universe to a deist; a power that wants a personal relationship with each human, but refuses to talk directly to them; an entity kills everyone and everything on Earth except those occupying a boat, and a font of infinite forgiveness.
Even limited to popular interpretations of the Bible, God is not a well-defined entity. Therefore, vague. Other supernatural entities - ghosts, pixies, demons - are also vaguely defined.
---
### Author:  [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/96 "2011-08-18T15:30:43Z")
> [@colonial](#):
>
> Limiting the case to the omnipotent Abrahamic God, He created the scientific Laws of Nature, but is not restricted by them. For example, although mice and men cannot, as a matter of scientific law, exceed the Speed of Light, God can: He may take physical presence anywhere from one end of the Universe to the other instantaneously and simultaneously…
This gets to the heart of the issue I think. When creationists claim that science is closed-minded because it refuses to consider supernatural explanations, the creationists and the scientists are using two different ideas of what they mean by “supernatural.”
To the scientists who claim that we can’t study the supernatural, what they’re saying is that something that has no effects on the natural world can’t be studied. However the creationists see their supernatural God as having real effects in the physical world. I think that generally scientists would say that if _anything_ has effects in the natural world, it’s open to being examined by science.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/97 "2011-08-18T16:35:44Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#):
>
> If man cannot rule out alternatives with 100% certainty, then it is possible those alternatives are true. Our lack of complete knowledge about everything renders alternatives possible.
>
> Scientists cannot claim with 100% certainty that at no time in 1650 or 1950 did anything which exceeded the speed of light. As a result of being incapable of ruling this out with 100% certainty, and this incapability in part being the result of a lack of complete knowledge about everything, then it is possible something existed which exceeded the speed of light in 1650 or 1950.
Again, you are confusing our knowledge of whether something is possible with whether it actually is possible. If our physics is even remotely accurate, we know nothing exceeded c in 1650 or even 1650,000 BCE. (If we are wrong about this, then it could happen.) But if the true laws of physics make exceeding c impossible, it matters little what we think about it.
> [@](#):
>
> I would be most interested to know how exactly you deduce it was not possible, i.e. impossible, for anything to exceed the speed of light in 1650 and 1950?
Because the laws of physics are invariant over time, which we can demonstrate by observing stars and galaxies the light from which left long before 1650.
I’m not saying that we can be absolutely 100% certain that the laws of physics are true. We can’t be 100% certain that there was a world in 1650. But that is a different matter from actual laws.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/98 "2011-08-18T16:39:02Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#):
>
> Now you’ve got me wondering about the meaning of the word “possible.”
>
> If we live in a deterministic universe, you could say _nothing’s_ possible except what actually does occur.
Interesting. Luckily, we don’t live in a deterministic universe. Even if we did, we would never know what is possible by your definition or not because the time and information needed to determine what is possible (that is what will be the result of current conditions) is greater than the time for the next thing to actually happen.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/99 "2011-08-18T16:45:04Z")
> [@CurtC](#):
>
> This gets to the heart of the issue I think. When creationists claim that science is closed-minded because it refuses to consider supernatural explanations, the creationists and the scientists are using two different ideas of what they mean by “supernatural.”
>
> To the scientists who claim that we can’t study the supernatural, what they’re saying is that something that has no effects on the natural world can’t be studied. However the creationists see their supernatural God as having real effects in the physical world. I think that generally scientists would say that if _anything_ has effects in the natural world, it’s open to being examined by science.
If supernatural events can’t affect the natural world, then they effectively don’t exist. I don’t see anything in any reasonable definition of the supernatural that would imply that they can’t be examined by science. They just can’t be explained by science. The problem isn’t that science can’t examine these things - it is that every supposed effect of a supernatural phenomenon has turned out to be explicable by natural causes. Fakery is a natural cause.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693/100 "2011-08-18T16:47:31Z")
> [@colonial](#):
>
> What do you mean cite?
>
> The Abraham god is considered omnipotent by almost all Abrahamic sects,
> isn’t He? nd omnipotence conveys the ability to transcend the Laws of Nature,
> doesn’t it?
Except when chariots of iron are involved, apparently.
Omnipotence has been inferred for God, mostly from the Christian definition of God, but there is precious little in the Bible, especially the older parts, that support it.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-found-out-ive-been-presupposing-naturalism-my-whole-life-is-this-a-fallacy/592693.md?page=6)