7-Naturalism is self-refuting

Although many people think that Christianity is at odds, if not at war, with science, historians of science point out that Christianity was, in fact, necessary for the rise of modern science. Christians past and present have been and are leaders in science. However, in the years following Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, there was a philosophical or metaphysical change, among many in science, to the worldview of naturalism.
In this lecture I introduce the primary alternative to Christianity (and theism in general), namely, naturalism (a/k/a materialism or physicalism). This is the worldview being aggressively promoted by the “new atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. I note the implications of this “universal acid” (Dennett’s phrase). I begin with skeptic David Hume’s assessment of the fact that naturalism cannot justify itself or provide any basis for abstract universals such as the regularity of nature, the laws of logic, or truth. Only theism, particularly Christianity, provides an adequate basis for such regularity, the reliability of reason, and abstract universals. I look at C. S. Lewis’s argument from reason and Alvin Plantinga’s similar evolutionary argument from reason to flesh this out.

[@KingJamesSafari]

ECLEA videos: bravo! I totally agree that Christianity and science are not only compatible but is the way things are. I strive to bring similar philosophical content, with God at the forefront, to my few subscribers.

[@ecleavideos1593]

Thank you very much, and best of success to you!

[@frosted1030]

You are attempting to compare a methodology that brings you results with explanatory and predictive power to a beLIEf system that refutes everything based on what was written before toilet paper was invented.. we can contrast these, your comparison makes no sense at all.

[@ecleavideos1593]

I am not exactly sure what you are saying. I think your reference to the "methodology" refers to the reliability of logic and reason; I presume that by the "belief system" you are referring to Christianity and the Bible. If that is what you mean, then my point is that naturalism cannot account for the laws of logic (or any other abstract universal) or the reliability of logic and reason. Christianity can.

[@frosted1030]

@@ecleavideos1593 " I think your reference to the "methodology" refers to the reliability of logic and reason" No, we have better tools than that.
"my point is that naturalism cannot account for the laws of logic" WTF.. ok.. let's break down why this is bullshit. You are asking people to forgo reason for the unreasonable, logic for (no doubt) logical fallacies. In terms apologists fail to comprehend: your explanatory power lacks predictive power and is dismissed because of that. In terms you can comprehend more fluidly, you wouldn't fail the challenge if you had a consistent methodology. So, once again we return to the challenge the dull theist fails by dodging or presenting logical fallacies. Can you actually meet the challenge or are you another simple minded fool begging to talk to an echochamber?
Describe your methodology for determining the truth and how you apply that methodology without hypocrisy to every situation.

[@hitman5782]

Interesting claim while living in a universe where 100% of everything ever observed is natural. Nobody has ever demonstrated anything supernatural.

[@ecleavideos1593]

Throughout my book I present, I believe, a sufficient evidentiary basis which corroborates not only that God exists but who he is. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is probably the supernatural event par excellence and multitudes saw and engaged with him after his resurrection. One chapter deals with supernatural events that have been experienced and observed in the contemporary world. As I point out, existence, life, mind, morality, etc. cannot be explained by naturalism; ipso facto, supernaturalism must be true.

[@hitman5782]

@@ecleavideos1593 Here is my offer: Present a single example of "sufficient evidence-based" examples that show that a god exists and who he is and I buy 20 examples of your book so that I can give one copy to every of my atheist friends.
The resurrection of Jesus is nothing but a very primitive story in a very primitive book. Nobody during his supposed lifetime wrote a single word about this guy. All his stories have been written at least decades later by some anonymous fanboys, and not a single one can be shown to have actually happened.
It´s so weak, it´s not even an argument, it´s just what some people claimed. It´s as impressive as when Muslims write in their holy book that 5000 people saw Mohamed flying to heaven on a winged horse or me saying that I have an invisible pink dragon in my garage. It´s just claims, and no atheist can be impressed by that.
We may not know exactly how the first living cells have formed but we know pretty much everything beyond that point and it´s all natural and no god appears anywhere.
Mind and how our brain works is a well-understood natural phenomenon.
Morality is a byproduct of evolution and also well-understood and explained by the natural world.
Do you understand that you still haven´t presented anything supernatural?
Do you understand the difference between an anonymous author 50 years after a supposed event claiming that 500 people saw something and 500 people actually seeing something?
Whe the quran makes pretty much the same claim about their prophet, do you believe that as well?
Do you know who Sai Baba is? Well, doesn´t matter, it´s a Hindu prophet, and thousands of REAL people have sworn that he was able to raise the dead, heal the sick and so on. Does that show that the Hindu gods are real? Are you impressed by that claims? If not, why not and why do you care about what the bible authors claimed?
When the bible authors claimed that hordes of undead walked around in Jerusalem, do you believe that as well, or is there a limit of bullshit you are willing to swallow?

[@frosted1030]

@@ecleavideos1593 " I believe, a sufficient evidentiary basis which corroborates not only that God exists but who he is" It doesn't matter what you beLIEve. Maybe you need a thought exercise to show exactly why your hypocritical attitude is mere compartmentalization. We can also explore why you already failed the most base challenge here.

[@Stupidityindex]

The King of the Jews is mounted on a stick, because Romans made a parody of the icon. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree:" Galatians 3:13
We should all indoctrinate children with nonsense like prayer: Nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital. You trade your last cow for a handful of magic beans & pretend you should be respected for it.

[@ecleavideos1593]

That Christ was crucified is well attested historically, as is his resurrection from the dead. Your second paragraph, however, suggests something more personal is going on, perhaps the death of a child you knew. That is what John Feinberg calls "the religious problem of evil," i.e., when terrible things happen to us or those we care about. All the arguments I make and evidence I present may not be able to assuage the hurt in your heart when something like that occurs. However, if you consider those arguments and evidence in advance, they may help you when you face situations like the death of a child, because in the back of your mind you may at least know and recall that you are not just the detritus of a meaningless universe, but God is there, he loves you, and you are not alone.