So what can we say about metaphysical naturalism? Well again I want to make two points. First,
my arguments for the existence of God showed that metaphysical naturalism is not true. There is a
personal, transcendent reality beyond the physical universe. But secondly, I think that metaphysical
naturalism is so contrary to reason and experience as to be absurd, and in the following arguments,
the first premise in every case is taken from Dr. Rosenberg's own book. So first, the argument from
intentionality. According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true I cannot think about anything.
That's because there are no intentional states. But two, I am thinking about naturalism. From
which it follows three therefore naturalism is not true. So if you think that you ever
think about anything, you should conclude that naturalism is false. Second, the argument from
meaning. According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true no sentence has any meaning. And he says
that all the sentences in his own book are in fact meaningless. But, premise two, premise one has
meaning. We all understood it, and therefore it follows that three, naturalism is not true. Third
argument from truth. According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true there are no true sentences,
and that's because they're all meaningless. But two, premise one is true; that's what the
naturalist believes and asserts. From which it follows three, therefore naturalism is not true.
Fourth, the argument from moral praise and blame. According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true
then I am not morally praiseworthy or blame worthy for any of my actions because as I said
on his view, objective moral values and duties do not exist. But two, I am morally praiseworthy and
blame worthy for at least some of my actions. If you think that you've ever done something truly
wrong or truly good, then you should conclude that three, therefore naturalism is not true. Fifth,
the argument from freedom. According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true I do not do
anything freely. Everything is determined. But two, I can freely agree or disagree with premise
one, from which it follows three, therefore naturalism is not true. Sixth, the argument from
purpose. According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true I do not plan to do anything. But two,
I planned to come to tonight's debate. That's why I'm here, from which it follows three, therefore
naturalism is not true. Seventh, the argument from enduring. According to Dr. Rosenberg,
if naturalism is true I do not endure for two moments of time. But two, I have been sitting here
for more than a minute. If you think that you're the same person who walked into the room tonight,
then you should agree that three, therefore naturalism is not true. And finally the argument
from personal existence; this is perhaps the coup de grace against naturalism. According to Dr.
Rosenberg, if naturalism is true I do not exist. He says there are no selves, there are no persons,
no first-person perspectives. But two, I do exist! I know this as certainly as I know anything. From
which it follows, therefore naturalism is not true. In a word, metaphysical naturalism is
absurd. And notice that my argument is not that it is unappealing. Rather it is that metaphysical
naturalism flies in the face of reason and experience, and is therefore untenable.