Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Definitions: Natural Vs. Supernatural.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
Prove empirically that this definition is correct. With out begging the question.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostYou couldn't prove it empirically. That doesn't make any sense. 'Natural' and 'supernatural' aren't empirical concepts. Why don't you tell us where you're headed with this thread?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI have gone around this issue a bit, and I still maintain that the definitions of natural and supernatural are so ambiguous as to be without meaning. Why can't a supernatural universe, for instance, be open to investigate with knowable laws and function? The problem is we have no way to compare these two ideas. Unlike with with most things we define, like a table or chair, there is no objective way to distinguish between supernatural and natural - it is a complete guess.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostMy point there is no rational justification for the definitions or distinctions.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/0...ernatural.html
Comment
-
the things you say are wrong, God is real,God did create, but your statement is wrong on a deeper level than just being factually in error. There i a definable Christian view of SN. That is what you say is wrong but you don't know what it is.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWell, sure. Nothing in metaphysics is 'provable.' But that was kind of assumed, wasn't it?
Naturalists are saying there's no evidence for anything beyond what can be described by natural law, at least in principle.
Comment
-
Originally posted by metacrock View Postthe things you say are wrong, God is real,God did create, but your statement is wrong on a deeper level than just being factually in error. There i a definable Christian view of SN. That is what you say is wrong but you don't know what it is.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAnd the definable Christian view is that God is the supernatural realm, or as you have defined it "the ground of the natural" and the creation is the natural realm. So, I don't see a unique argument or definition there. If god exists, then he/she/it would be the supernatural realm as opposed to the created realm, or natural realm. But the natural realm would be the natural realm whether a god or a supernatural realm existed or not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI have gone around this issue a bit, and I still maintain that the definitions of natural and supernatural are so ambiguous as to be without meaning. Why can't a supernatural universe, for instance, be open to investigate with knowable laws and function? The problem is we have no way to compare these two ideas. Unlike with with most things we define, like a table or chair, there is no objective way to distinguish between supernatural and natural - it is a complete guess.
I don't see why you are dissatisfied with current conventions for discussing the supernatural vs. the natural. This stuff is discussed every day by folks who seem able to rely on semantically appropriate language to do so. Seems you've engaged robustly in these conversations yourself for a number of years; are you just getting burned out by the constant "linguistic waves" crashing against the stone walls of other folks' worldviews with no mind seemingly ever changed? Not uncommon for one's battery to run down after a while.
I look at things from the perspective of information. Things that are able to in-form perception, that intentionality is able to grab hold of and present to the [human] mind. This is no quick fix, but is the only common denominator I can find between the supernatural [spiritual in religiousspeak] and natural: the mind is able to connect to both. Matter in time and space is loud, gets most of our attention. This is why I'm no nominalist. Concepts and universals have informational structure in the intellect. Matter in time and space shares the same structure Concepts and universals are elegantly simple and natural stuff is complex, which may be why reductionism is so popular with material things. But both share the simple "that-what" organization I assign the title 'structured information'. The supernatural is "natural" to the abstract realm. It seems embedded in and around abstract objects. Ill defined? Yes. But there is nothing that violates the laws of logic--given the revelatory function of the Bible (don't know about other religions, not familiar enough to speak for them)--in the idea that while humans are tied into this large existence in houses of matter, the bigger reality [beyond the material in the abstract realm] is mostly hidden from minds. Not entirely hidden, as pointed out above abstract objects provide information to minds in the same informational structure as material stuff. There is no reason not to suppose the greater reality--of which the natural is only one form of information--is superior to the natural. The secular world has been successful in convincing us that we have to judge things by their standards...that only empirically verifiable things in spacetime exist. Can't blame them. As long as they keep their eyes on the natural it will be the altar they worship at. This is too restrictive for me, I prefer, as I suppose other theists do, more freedom to step outside material/empirical constraints.
Btw, for those who mock the idea of an abstract reality need to consider the lay of the land here...
http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu...qn_summary.pdf
...and explain how this fits into the naturalist worldview.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
609 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment