:up:

:lol:

Ok, rather than call what is outside of natural "supernatural", would you prefer "non-natural"? I don't really care about the terminology. If you dislike the term "supernatural" let's just call it "non-natural". — Metaphysician Undercover

-both describe the same concept.
Again the problem is How do you prove that!!!!!?


When it is demonstrated that there is something other than the natural, then we must call it something. You defined "natural" as what manifests through verified building blocks, so the manifestation of the building blocks themselves must be something other than natural. Can we call this the "non-natural"?[/quote]
-lol......no those building blocks "obey" all the laws of nature. There is nothing non natural about them!
Don't use that term as a bin to throw in anything you don't understand. That is a fallacy.(Argument from ignorance).

A "system" is a human construct. This statement makes no sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Dude...your language mode is a mesh. This "system" includes facts of REALITY. (our biological urges, environmental stimuli, peer pressure, cultural pressure, superstition, habits....etc etc.
Come on...lets no tap dance around concepts.

-"It's already been demonstrated. According to your definition of "natural", nature builds things from building blocks"
-lol no it isn't......arbitrary labels do not make parts of nature supernatural....lol

You need to demonstrate that building blocks in nature NEED a supernatural agent to exist before assuming their supernatural origins.

-"I've demonstrated the necessity to assume a cause which is not natural,"
-lol no you haven't. Demonstration requires objective evidence....you are just pointing to something you don't understand and declare it supernatural. That is pseudo philosophy.

And religions give reasons for the universe and life in it? If that what you’re saying, it’s just another way of saying that we make our own reasons for the universe and life in it. Honestly, I think the reasons that religions offer are rather childish, and worse than childish, they are largely meaningless — praxis

How can we make our own reasons for life and the universe? We didn't let them come to be. We might describe it, say by a cosmological model or evolution, but these are no reasons. Of course the meaning of it all isn't necessarily dependent on the reason it's all there. You can find a meaningful existence in a lot of things. But knowing the universe and life in it, were made by gods gives it somewhat extra and not retractable or reducable to science For example, you can't say life is there because it was directed by selfish genes or memes.

-lol......no those building blocks "obey" all the laws of nature. There is nothing non natural about them! — Nickolasgaspar

Look, lets say there is a bunch of building blocks, and what these building blocks do is obey the laws of nature, so that whatever they produce is said to be natural. Now, lets move along and consider how the building blocks came into existence. Clearly, the activity which caused the existence of the blocks is not an activity of the blocks themselves, because it is an activity which is prior to the existence of the blocks, causing the existence of the blocks. And only the activity of the blocks is defined as "natural". So whatever activity it was, which caused the existence of the blocks, this must be other than natural. Agree?

Come on...lets no tap dance around concepts. — Nickolasgaspar

If we're not going to "dance around concepts", then what is the point of this discussion?

You need to demonstrate that building blocks in nature NEED a supernatural agent to exist before assuming their supernatural origins. — Nickolasgaspar

No, you defined "nature" that way, as what manifests from fundamental building blocks. It was your definition. All I need to do is show that there is necessarily something outside of what is "natural", by your definition, and this is, by valid logic, non-natural. That I've done.

How can we make our own reasons for life and the universe? — Haglund

:chin: :chin: :chin:

How did you do that?

Of course. I have good reasons to life. Life itself is the reason. But to life it, knowing we're made by some magical eternal gods, all of life in heavenly image, give it an extra meaning. And, maaaaybe, a guidance towards our position vis a vis nature.

Look, lets say there is a bunch of building blocks, and what these building blocks do is obey the laws of nature, so that whatever they produce is said to be natural. Now, lets move along and consider how the building blocks came into existence. Clearly, the activity which caused the existence of the blocks is not an activity of the blocks themselves, because it is an activity which is prior to the existence of the blocks, causing the existence of the blocks. And only the activity of the blocks is defined as "natural". So whatever activity it was, which caused the existence of the blocks, this must be other than natural. Agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

-"Now, lets move along and consider how the building blocks came into existence. "
-You don't know how they came in to existence. Maybe they existed all along...and this is most probably the case since none existence is not a state being on its own.

-"Clearly, the activity which caused the existence of the blocks is not an activity of the blocks themselves, because it is an activity which is prior to the existence of the blocks, causing the existence of the blocks."
- Well we need to be more precise. We have a cosmic quantum field where we can observe quantum fluctuations affecting the fundamental particles of our universe. We understand that there is a sub-level underlying the building blocks of our universe and they are totally natural in their behavior (A Nobel Prize was awarded for the modeling of those fluctuations).

-"And only the activity of the blocks is defined as "natural". So whatever activity it was, which caused the existence of the blocks, this must be other than natural. Agree?"
-How on earth can you conclude to that claim? We don't know if Quantum fluctuations came in to existence or they were always there. We don't know if there was a cause or that cause can NOT be natural.
The burden is on you who makes a claim for something that can't be demonstrated to be possible. At least we know that Natural Causation exists!

-"If we're not going to "dance around concepts", then what is the point of this discussion?"
-An honest....we don't know answer? An honest acknowledgement that we have verified natural causation and he have never verified supernatural causation to be possible????

-"No, you defined "nature" that way, as what manifests from fundamental building blocks. It was your definition. All I need to do is show that there is necessarily something outside of what is "natural", by your definition, and this is, by valid logic, non-natural. That I've done. "
-How can you ever demonstrate that??? How can you show that there is something necessary "outside nature" and how can you say that "necessary thing" has properties that aren't natural????? Valid logic will not make the trick. You will need Soundness...not validity. Logic is acceptable to the GIGO effect. You will need to feed demonstrated premises.
"Not even Wrong" arguments are not useful or philosophical.
The main problem with your claim is that you are unable to define the non natural, So you will always end up with an argument from ignorance fallacy...no matter how sound your reasoning appears to be.

In short, we have no data to feed in our metaphysics. You can't do Philosophy Without foundational data. You assume way to many things that you know nothing about.
We don't know if this cosmic fluctuation field is eternal or not, we don't know if the emergence of processes like our Universe is a one time or constantly occurring phenomenon...we know nothing.
So assuming the ontology of the cause for a phenomenon that possibly never happened (nature came in to being) is an irrational intellectual practice.

Most importantly even if there was a cause responsible of what we identify as Nature, that wouldn't quality as "non natural"...because "Nature" is a limited label we put on what we currently know about the cosmos.

No, you defined "nature" that way, as what manifests from fundamental building blocks. It was your definition. — Nickolasgaspar

You produced the definition. Let me remind you:

In Science Natural is every process or phenomenon that manifest in reality through verified building blocks of the physical would and or their advanced properties. — Nickolasgaspar

-You don't know how they came in to existence. Maybe they existed all along...and this is most probably the case since none existence is not a state being on its own. — Nickolasgaspar

So, since "natural" is the things built with the building blocks, then this kind of thing which "existed all along" the building blocks themselves, are non-natural.

Well we need to be more precise. We have a cosmic quantum field where we can observe quantum fluctuations affecting the fundamental particles of our universe. We understand that there is a sub-level underlying the building blocks of our universe and they are totally natural in their behavior (A Nobel Prize was awarded for the modeling of those fluctuations). — Nickolasgaspar

Now you have gone outside the the constraints of your definition of "natural". You'll have to produce a new definition for me. We'll start all over with a new definition, and then I'll see if there are things outside your definition which are necessarily non-natural.

You now say that there is a "cosmic quantum field" whose activities to create the building blocks, are natural activities. What about that field itself, it must have been created by some other activity which is non-natural. Or maybe it "existed all along"? Then, as above, that kind of thing would be unnatural as well. Maybe you want to try for a better definition of "natural", one which might include every possible thing? Do you think a "possible thing" is something natural?

How on earth can you conclude to that claim? — Nickolasgaspar

It was your definition of "natural", manifestations of the activities of the fundamental building blocks.

The burden is on you who makes a claim for something that can't be demonstrated to be possible. — Nickolasgaspar

I made that demonstration. I proceeded from your definition of "natural", to demonstrate that there is necessarily something non-natural. Can you produce a better definition of "natural", one which would make any such demonstration impossible?

In short, we have no data to feed in our metaphysics. You can't do Philosophy Without foundational data. You assume way to many things that you know nothing about.
We don't know if this cosmic fluctuation field is eternal or not, we don't know if the emergence of processes like our Universe is a one time or constantly occurring phenomenon...we know nothing.
So assuming the ontology of the cause for a phenomenon that possibly never happened (nature came in to being) is an irrational intellectual practice.

Most importantly even if there was a cause responsible of what we identify as Nature, that wouldn't quality as "non natural"...because "Nature" is a limited label we put on what we currently know about the cosmos. — Nickolasgaspar

If you don't even know what "natural" means, why are you so vehemently opposed to "supernatural". I don't understand this. Do you give "supernatural" a meaning which is not based in the root "natural"?

So, since "natural" is the things built with the building blocks, then this kind of thing which "existed all along" the building blocks themselves, are non-natural. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again...why is this so difficult for you? Science offers descriptive definitions.
We will need to investigate the mechanism that produced those building blocks and then decide, based on their properties whether they are natural or non natural.
Again you view the Natural as a Realm when it has to do with the properties displayed by the process.
Keep in mind that I clearly pointed to what renders a process natural.

And of course non natural can mean anything. I.e. Quantum fluctuations do not have a documented causal mechanism. Particles pop in and out of existence but their "qualities" point to a natural process. This discovery was awarded with a Nobel Prize...but no one promoted the non natural quality of this phenomenon.
You will need to define the qualities of the non natural. IF not you are trapped in an argument from ignorance fallacy. We need to know what qualities to look for in order to be sure that its not a natural process that differs from what we currently have been observing.

Now you have gone outside the the constraints of your definition of "natural". You'll have to produce a new definition for me. We'll start all over with a new definition, and then I'll see if there are things outside your definition which are necessarily non-natural. — Metaphysician Undercover

-No I haven't. I described you what known Natural Processes are...read my definition once more.
Just because there is a process with different characteristic but with the same natural properties that doesn't make it "non natural" . Again you need to define "non natural" or you end up with an Argument from ignorance fallacy.

-" You'll have to produce a new definition for me."
-I could produce a definition for the non natural...that would be the most sensible thing to do.
Natural Processes, as I told you are caused by fundamental building blocks of the Cosmos, which give rise to the building blocks of our Universe (sub particles with their quantum behavior, molecules, chemistry, biology etc). Their unguided interactions and really simple properties (kinetic, charge etc) define the produced results, structures, laws etc.
A non natural process would be: cosmic building blocks being externally guided in interactions with intention, purpose, plan and goal, producing results that aren't regular(unpredictable) or contingent to their properties or their displayed properties claimed to be far more advanced (kinetic, energetic charges etc) than those observed and verified in these cosmic scales.
Are you satisfied with my definition on the "non natural" concept?

If you don't even know what "natural" means, why are you so vehemently opposed to "supernatural". I don't understand this. Do you give "supernatural" a meaning which is not based in the root "natural"? — Metaphysician Undercover

-The problem is not with what Natural means. The Natural is defined by our current Scientific Paradigm where , as I already explain, processes enable the emergence of advanced properties withing complex structures and functions. We don't observe advanced properties displayed by the building blogs of matter.i.e. we need to observe structures of molecules to find advanced properties like chemical, biological ,mental etc.

What we verify is just Kinetic properties and charges by particles in a fundamental scale. Those are necessary and sufficient(maybe counterintuitive) to explain the emergence of the Physical world.
Any claim that introduces advanced properties (mind properties, agents, chemical, biological etc)in really small fundamental scales is immediately classified as a supernatural claim.

I hope these definitions will help this discussion go further from arbitrarily declaring things we don't know "non natural".

You will need to define the qualities of the non natural. — Nickolasgaspar

As I said, the meaning of "non-natural" is derived from the definition of the root, "natural". Whatever demonstrates to us, that it cannot be classified as "natural", must be classed as non-natural. That's why we cannot proceed without a working definition of "natural". You provided a definition, and I demonstrated the logical necessity of concluding that there is also non-natural things.

-No I haven't. I described you what known Natural Processes are...read my definition once more.
Just because there is a process with different characteristic but with the same natural properties that doesn't make it "non natural" . Again you need to define "non natural" or you end up with an Argument from ignorance fallacy. — Nickolasgaspar

If "natural" is defined as the process which produces things from the building blocks, then the process which produces the building blocks is necessarily non-natural. "Different characteristics" means a different process. And to say "different characteristics but with the same ... properties" is basic contradiction.

Natural Processes, as I told you are caused by fundamental building blocks of the Cosmos, which give rise to the building blocks of our Universe — Nickolasgaspar

Again, there is clear contradiction here. You are talking about processes "caused by fundamental building blocks", then you say that these processes "give rise to the building blocks". The first is necessarily posterior to the existence of the building blocks, and therefore cannot be the cause of the blocks, as the second "give rise to..." implies.

Are you satisfied with my definition on the "non natural" concept? — Nickolasgaspar

No, you use far too many contradictions. One contradiction is too many, you have at least double that amount.

I hope these definitions will help this discussion go further from arbitrarily declaring things we don't know "non natural". — Nickolasgaspar

It's not arbitrary, it's a conclusion of logical necessity. If we define a specific class of processes as "natural", then all the processes which we know must exist through the application of logic, yet which cannot be placed in that category of "natural", must by logical necessity, be classed as non-natural. It's not a case of not knowing whether the processes are natural or not, its a case of having a defined category of "natural", and knowing that these processes cannot qualify for that category.

As I said, the meaning of "non-natural" is derived from the definition of the root, "natural". Whatever demonstrates to us, that it cannot be classified as "natural", must be classed as non-natural. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well if you understand logic you would understand WHY we don't use "negations" to define things (especially those we ignore).
You are using are ignorance as an excuse to assume an "exotic" ontology.
Supposed the limited capabilities as an observer do not allow you to classify something.
Suppose we we found out a new natural mechanism and we need to adjust the definition to include it.
So its not wise or philosophical way to argue for other levels of reality..

-" You provided a definition, and I demonstrated the logical necessity of concluding that there is also non-natural things."
-You keep repeating this factually wrong statement when I constantly point that the fallacious nature of your "logical necessity". first of all you don't understand the meaning of the word "demonstration".
You don't demonstrate because you can not provide objective evidence for the premises of your arguments. You just claim and your claim are fallacious (argument from ignorance).
Why do we have keep repeating the same things again and again????
Why is this so difficult for you???

You can not claim that there are non natural things necessary to explain our universe, while you are unable to define and show which "exotic" properties those things have that make them necessary.

If "natural" is defined as the process which produces things from the building blocks, then the process which produces the building blocks is necessarily non-natural. "Different characteristics" means a different process. And to say "different characteristics but with the same ... properties" is basic contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

-lol.....i.e. a previously exited electron returning to its initial state produces a fundamental element of our world (photon). There is nothing supernatural about that process.
Sorry sir but you are way to ignorant on epistemology or philosophy to have a conversation with.
I understand that you are attached to your supernatural beliefs and I will allow you to keep it, but I can not waste arguing against kindergarten pseudo arguments.

Take care and find a suitable new age forum for your ideas. Philosophical forums are not suitable places to expand the theory of your beliefs.

Well if you understand logic you would understand WHY we don't use "negations" to define things — Nickolasgaspar

You don't seem to understand that when the term being defined is the negation of another, i.e. "non...", then we refer to the other to derive our definition of the negation. For example, to define "non-drinker", we refer to what "drinker" means. To define "non-contagious", we refer to what "contagious" means, to define what "non-partisan" means we refer to what "partisan" means, and to define what 'non-natural" means we would refer to what "natural" means.

Supposed the limited capabilities as an observer do not allow you to classify something. — Nickolasgaspar

I explained that this is not the case in this instance. We know, through logic that the processes must exist. We also know from the definition of "natural" that these processes cannot ever be placed in the category of "natural" without changing that definition.

Suppose we we found out a new natural mechanism and we need to adjust the definition to include it. — Nickolasgaspar

This is contradiction. If the new mechanism is excluded from the existing definition of "natural", it cannot be called a "natural" mechanism. So finding a process which cannot be classed as "natural" by the definition, does not justify changing the definition just because you want to call it a "natural process".

Why don't you just define "natural" right now, to say that every actual thing, and every possible thing, or process is natural? I've given you that option. But I am doubtful as to how accurate it is to call a possible thing "natural".

You can not claim that there are non natural things necessary to explain our universe, while you are unable to define and show which "exotic" properties those things have that make them necessary. — Nickolasgaspar

I don't see how "exotic" has anything to do with this. If it is true that there are things in the universe, processes or whatever, which cannot be called "natural" then we can call then "non-natural". Whether or not they are "exotic" or whatever, is irrelevant.

Here is a caller of an Atheist show making the same ridiculous use of the term "supernatural".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MpQNtbfLyU
Maybe hearing the problem of your reasoning from an other mouth might help you get unstuck from the trap you are in.

I asked you way back, weeks ago, if you minded me using "non-natural" instead of "supernatural". And you never objected to that.

Ok, rather than call what is outside of natural "supernatural", would you prefer "non-natural"? I don't really care about the terminology. If you dislike the term "supernatural" let's just call it "non-natural". — Metaphysician Undercover

Now you've just confirmed what I thought at the outset, and what I stated way back 17 days ago, when I first engaged you. You very clearly have a preconceived notion of "supernatural", and a bias and prejudice towards this notion. This prejudice disables your capacity to approach the subject logically, with an open mind.

This is clearly a biased statement.. Whenever evidence and logic indicate the reality of that which is beyond the natural, then the appropriate conclusion is the supernatural. To deny the reality of what the evidence and logic lead you toward, because it's contrary to what you already believe, is simple prejudice. — Metaphysician Undercover

-" You very clearly have a preconceived notion of "supernatural", and a bias and prejudice towards this notion. This prejudice disables your capacity to approach the subject logically, with an open mind."

-Dude I gave you a definition on what supernatural means. You tap danced and didn't really answer. You insisted in reusing your from ignorance fallacy.
How can you distinguish a truly non natural phenomenon from a phenomenon you don't fully understand???????
This is why I hold your feet in the fire to provide me the basic characteristics I should look for a non natural phenomenon and you insist in recycling your argument from ignorance fallacy.
This is dishonest sophistry mate...sorry.

You need to demonstrate that a phenomenon is non natural (it can not be produced by natural processes) and then point to the mechanism that qualifies as supernatural(i.e agency guiding the process or agency existing non contingent to a physical process).
How are you sure you know all about the natural processes? Classic argument from ignorance fallacy.

ITs 2022....and we still argue against logical fallacies and supernaturalism. This is really sad.

You need to demonstrate that a phenomenon is non natural... — Nickolasgaspar

I already did that.

You think you do (due to a fallacy) but you haven't.
You just ignore the ontology of a phenomenon (either from Personal Incredulity fallacy or a general lack of knowledge) and you just declare it non natural. That is intellectual dishonesty.

You will need to define what qualifies as non natural, define the properties that render a phenomenon non natural and demonstrate them to exist in that specific phenomenon.
Not knowing the ontology of phenomenon makes it unknown ...not supernatural or non natural.

This is basic logic 101

ITs 2022....and we still argue against logical fallacies and supernaturalism. This is really sad. — Nickolasgaspar

Indeed! Why not just acknowledging that the supernatural is just as valid as the natural? :up:

How can you reasonably do that? You will need objective facts to justify such an acknowledgement. Do we have any available? Have we ever solved a mystery that was caused by a verified supernatural agent/cause?

Have we ever solved a mystery that was caused by a verified supernatural agent/cause? — Nickolasgaspar

We, or me at least, have solved the mystery of the universe and life in it they created.

And how can you objectively demonstrate the truth value of your claim.
You say that you have a solution about the mystery of the universe and life. How can you demonstrate its indeed a solution(not just a claim) and how can you verify the supernatural nature of it.
How can you prove to us that all 4.300 conflicting religions and 160+ spiritual worldviews don't have the "right" solution but only yours is the right one.
I guess that claim that's able to provide objective evidence will be the correct one.

You say that you have a solution about the mystery of the universe and life. How can you demonstrate its indeed a solution(not just a claim) and how can you verify the supernatural nature of it. — Nickolasgaspar

If my model offers an observable and adequate prediction the model is justified. The model can't go deeper than the only thing to conclude is that divine powers have transformed the model in a real tangible universe, like the magician pulls the rabid rabbit out of his hat, but without the magician's trickery.

-"

If my model offers an observable and adequate prediction the model is justified. — Hillary

-That would be great but not always. i.e. Ptolemaic epicycles did provide "adequate" predictions for that period. But I will agree with you Description, Prediction and Application should be fruits of all models.

-"The model can't go deeper than the only thing to conclude is that divine powers have transformed the model in a real tangible universe"
-Ok that statement doesn't point how the model of a "divine power" can produce adequate predictions, but it does point to an argument from ignorance fallacy (because our model can't go deeper...thus magic).
And here is the second problem with models of" magic". Magic can "explain" anything since there are no limits in what magic can do. A bigger problem with magical explanation sis that they can not really make meaningful testable, accurate predictions.
You can say "everything is compatible with my model" and you would be right, because your model was designed to be compatible with anything. This is where Demarcation and the risk of the limits of an explanation has comes in and provides value in a model.

This can never be said for divine explanations.

What else than gods can be concluded after the gaps are closed (if you wanna use God as a god of the gaps, which isn't necessarily the case)?

What else than gods can be concluded after the gaps are closed (if you wanna use God as a god of the gaps, which isn't necessarily the case)? — Hillary

-After the gaps are closed? I don't get your question. If you close the gaps with a demonstrable answer then by definition we all have to conclude to that answer? Did I misread your question?

If your model predicts something with a good degree of accuracy under various different test methods then there is likely something within it worth looking at.