It would be useful to keep the natural/supernatural distinction were it not for the contradictory nature (pun intended) of this distinction, as I pointed out in my last two or three posts in this thread.I was you until you called the one reality "natural". Why would one use that word? Is it not better to employ a different word and keep the natural/supernatural distinction? It is useful to distinguish between gods and things, even if they are part of the same reality. — Mariner
Because if the universe has a beginning, then there must be a first thing. The only logical alternative is no beginning. But finiteness is a simpler hypothesis than infinity, and so, as per Occam's Razor, it becomes the prima facie until proven otherwise.
- Then this first natural thing is caused by another thing which has no cause (the first cause), for nothing can be the cause of itself.
- And everything in the natural universe has a cause, as we have established earlier.
- Therefore this first cause must be supernatural.
I also agree with ↪Mariner
here. Maybe we should find clear definitions of 'natural' and 'supernatural', if it is not already done. — Samuel Lacrampe
f you want to distinguish between gods and other things, then use the terms, "gods" and "things". We could also make the distinction between the two by using the terms, "imaginary" and "real". — Harry Hindu
There would be no reason to use the term, "supernatural". This has been my point all along, yet people seem to dense to get it. — Harry Hindu
Good point. Yes, definitions matter. So let's define "imaginings" and "reality" in a way that makes sense and see if we can maintain the gist of their meaning as most people understand them.So, reality would be composed of real and imaginary beings?
Isn't "reality/real" falling prey to the same problem that you identified with "nature"?
I don't see the difference between your formulation and "nature is composed of natural and supernatural beings" -- which, as you properly say, is a strange phrase.
Much better is the traditional "reality is composed of natural and supernatural beings" (leaving to the side, for the moment, whether imaginary/real is a proper dichotomy). — Mariner
I fail to see how "reality" and "nature" aren't synonymous."Reality can be properly addressed through the use of the word X". You claim that "Nature" is an adequate X. I prefer "Reality", not surprisingly, and I maintain that any X will be less adequate than "Reality", due to the construction of the phrase (i.e., regardless of what you or I think about it).
"Reality and Nature are synonyms" is simply false (nowadays, in 2017), it has been false throughout history, and if it becomes true at any point in the future, a new word (and world) will have to be coined to address what we, nowadays, in 2017, refer to as "Nature". — Mariner
What is the distinction you are seeing that I'm not? — Harry Hindu
In this sense we could say that imaginings are real things themselves, but they don't refer to anything out in the world in the way that our experiences of the world do. — Harry Hindu
I would re-word this to say that imaginings are part of the category of what is real, but isn't the only thing that is real. Reality is composed of everything - imaginings and non-imaginings. — Harry Hindu
"Nature" can refer to the properties of some thing as something inherent - of the properties that make the thing what it is, which could include just one thing (the nature of an organism) or the whole thing (all of nature). "Reality" is simply that same state of affairs or properties that makes the thing what it is, which could include just one thing (a piece of reality), or the whole thing (all of reality). — Harry Hindu
You are contradicting yourself, because you agreed earlier that "everything in the natural universe has a cause". The first cause, by definition, has a causal relationship, but no cause.If the universe was the effect of some cause, then that cause would be "natural" too, as there would be a causal relationship between the cause and the effect. — Harry Hindu
For a large class of cases — though not for all — in which we employ the word ‘meaning’, it can be explained thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language. — Wittgenstein
That is my point - that miracles and God are mislabelled as "supernatural" when they should be labeled as "natural" especially if they existed prior to the creation of the natural. The structure AND meaning of the word, "supernatural", shows that it stems from the world, "natural", which means that it is dependent upon the existence of the natural, which means that the natural came first and then the supernatural. As I have said before, the structure and meaning of the terms is contradictory to their use. It would make more sense to call miracles and God "natural" and then the creation, "supernatural", but I'm sure most theists will be offended at that.You are contradicting yourself, because you agreed earlier that "everything in the natural universe has a cause". The first cause, by definition, has a causal relationship, but no cause.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding and you meant instead that "everything in the natural universe has a causal relationship"? But that statement is false: Miracles have a causal relationship with the thing acted upon, and yet they are not classified as natural events. God has a causal relationship with his creation, and yet is not classified as a natural being. — Samuel Lacrampe
Here, I would simply use the qualifiers, "normal" and "abnormal". There are normal dogs in nature, and there are abnormal dogs in nature. As a matter of fact, mutations are natural events. Accidents are natural events, too.Ok, let's focus on the second definitions.
"Nature" is strong on "basic", "inherent", "characteristic". The idea here is to distinguish essential from non-essential attributes. "Dogs have four legs", even though we've seen three-legged dogs. The three-legged dogs are "not natural" in the sense of this second definition: having three legs is not a
"basic or inherent features of [dogness], especially when seen as characteristic of it." — Mariner
Here, I just go back to my qualifiers of "imaginary" and "non-imaginary" (notice how I didn't use the word, "real", as that seems to have this connotation that it would not include the imaginary.). To say that Santa Claus doesn't have existence or substance is to fall into the false dichotomy of dualism. As I said before, imaginary things exist, just as non-imaginary things do. They just exist differently, or have different characteristics. You can tell the difference between an imagining and a non-imagining, right, and you would agree that imaginings and non-imaginings exist, right?The second definition of "Reality" is more abstract. The three-legged dog has "the state or quality of having existence or substance". It is a real three-legged dog.
What about Santa Claus? He lacks the state or quality of having existence or substance... but it has some basic, inherent features. He has a white beard. He wears a red suit. He lives in the North Pole. He can have basic, inherent features even though he lacks the quality of having existence or substance. And the same applies to Frodo, Dracula or Sherlock Holmes.
The bottom line -- according to these two definitions, all beings have "a nature" (basic, inherent attributes), even non-existent beings, i.e., even non-real beings. — Mariner
I thought I already placed "supernatural" within the category of "imaginary" AND that I have shown that imaginary things exist - but only as imaginings. I made the distinction between "imaginary" and the "non-imaginary" quiet clear. It's just that not all imaginings are referred to as being "supernatural". "Supernatural" itself is an imaginary concept. This all seems fairly simple for me to grasp.The core of our disagreement is whether the word "supernatural" can be put to rest in the graveyard of old words. And we've seen that, just because something does not exist (i.e. "lacks the quality of having existence or substance"), we can't assume that it does not have a nature (basic, inherent features).
Let's explore what that means as it pertains to the matter of supernatural beings. Supernatural beings have "a nature" in that sense -- they have basic, inherent features. Why should we call them "supernatural", then? Because "nature" in the composition of the word "supernatural" is not related to "basic, inherent features"; it is related to the first definition ("physical world and its components"). In other words, supernatural beings have basic and inherent features -- one of them is that they are beyond and above (hence, "super") the natural world.
Note that this is true even if they lack the quality of existence or substance (i.e., even if we are talking of beings more akin to Frodo, Dracula and Sherlock Holmes than of beings more akin to you and me). — Mariner
Here, I would simply use the qualifiers, "normal" and "abnormal". There are normal dogs in nature, and there are abnormal dogs in nature. As a matter of fact, mutations are natural events. Accidents are natural events, too. — Harry Hindu
I thought I already placed "supernatural" within the category of "imaginary" AND that I have shown that imaginary things exist - but only as imaginings. I made the distinction between "imaginary" and the "non-imaginary" quiet clear. It's just that not all imaginings are referred to as being "supernatural". "Supernatural" itself is an imaginary concept. This all seems fairly simple for me to grasp. — Harry Hindu
Because if the universe has a beginning, then there must be a first thing. The only logical alternative is no beginning. But finiteness is a simpler hypothesis than infinity, and so, as per Occam's Razor, it becomes the prima facie until proven otherwise.
- Then this first natural thing is caused by another thing which has no cause (the first cause), for nothing can be the cause of itself.
- And everything in the natural universe has a cause, as we have established earlier.
- Therefore this first cause must be supernatural.
I also agree with ↪Mariner here. Maybe we should find clear definitions of 'natural' and 'supernatural', if it is not already done. — Samuel Lacrampe
I'm the opposite. Definitions are important because in my experience, if the definition of what we are talking about isn't clarified or agreed on, then we end up talking past each other, as we end up talking about different things. If you define something one way, while I define it another way, we are essentially talking about different things.I've come to depreciate definitions over time, in this context, not because they're useless or anything, but because their employment can be misleading. — jorndoe
Discovery comes first in the scientific process. Then comes that part about communicating your discoveries so that others may test them. How do you communicate your discoveries if not by using visual or auditory symbols to refer to these ideas in your head in a way that others will understand?Whatever is real, does not require our definitions to exist. Rather the opposite, we try to converge on quiddity of whatever is real by means of discovery, something like that. Oftentimes this involves predication. Merely defining quiddity of reality-constituents seems fraught. — jorndoe
It would only be circular if you are using the word you are defining in the definition of the word.Of course, in terms of our language, it's always a good idea to express things concisely, which may involve definitions. Going by dictionaries and encyclopedias, definitions are inherently circular, but that can work wonders in context-building. — jorndoe
The idea in someone's head that triggered the use of the word is what the word means, as the intent to communicate that idea existed prior to the use of the word. The meaning of words has nothing to do with their use. It has everything to do with the intent of the communicator. If "meaning" were use, then the word, "God", wouldn't refer to anything - not even the idea in someone's head. It would only refer to the use. So, god isn't a divine entity, not even an imaginary one? God is simply some use of some scribbles? Does that make sense?For a large class of cases — though not for all — in which we employ the word ‘meaning’, it can be explained thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language. — Wittgenstein — Wittgenstein
Did you read the thread? Are you asking Mariner and I to repeat ourselves?So, anyway, what are we on about with "natural" and "supernatural" here...? — jorndoe
The idea in someone's head that triggered the use of the word is what the word means, as the intent to communicate that idea existed prior to the use of the word. The meaning of words has nothing to do with their use. It has everything to do with the intent of the communicator. — Harry Hindu
Then having, three, four, or no legs isn't an inherent trait of being a dog. It seems to me that things have several traits, not just one, and it is these several traits that exist at once that defines the nature of some thing. A dog is still a dog even if it only has 3 legs, but he still barks, licks your face, smells other dogs' rear ends, and generally interacts with others of it's kind in a different way than it does with others that aren't of it's kind.No problem with that, but there is also -- as per the definitions you required us to use -- no problem in using the word "natural" to refer to a four-legged dog, and "not-natural" to refer to a three-legged dog. Having three legs is not a basic, inherent trait of dogness. — Mariner
What makes angels supernatural, and hobbits not? "Divinity"? - another imaginary word?I have no problem with any of this. The point of contention is rather why would you want to discard that word, since you ascribe referents to it, and you emphasize that these referents exist, only in a different way (imaginary) compared to other referents.
"God is an imaginary being", according to you. Ok. But so is Frodo, or Sherlock Holmes. One of them is supernatural, the other is not. (Heck, not even Spiderman, or Superman, would be "supernatural" according to the traditional usage). Why should we stop using the word supernatural to distinguish, say, angels from hobbits? — Mariner
Well, I did include in that same post the idea that for communication to happen, that your listener would have to understand your use of terms. If you knew that shaking your head in Bulgaria means the opposite, you wouldn't do it. If you did, and did it anyway, then you still have the idea, "no", in your head and your behavior is a representation of that idea. It's just that the observer has a different idea associated with that behavior.I don't think that's right. Consider something like shaking your head. Does shaking your head mean what you intend it to mean ("no") or does its meaning depend on how it's used in the given community (e.g. in Bulgaria it means "yes").
Even if you intend to express disagreement by shaking your head, shaking your head doesn't mean "no" in Bulgaria; it means "yes". — Michael
Then having, three, four, or no legs isn't an inherent trait of being a dog. — Harry Hindu
A dog is still a dog even if it only has 3 legs, but he still barks, licks your face, smells other dogs' rear ends, and generally interacts with others of it's kind in a different way than it does with others that aren't of it's kind. — Harry Hindu
What makes angels supernatural, and hobbits not? "Divinity"? - another imaginary word? — Harry Hindu
If having four legs were an inherent trait of being a dog, then what prevents you from labeling all four-legged animals, "dogs"?How do you know that?
I'd bet 99.99% of people (including the dictionary, encyclopedias, etc.) would say that dogs have the inherent trait of having four legs. There is even a scientific term for that -- they are quadrupeds, so say the wise scientists.
A dog is still a dog even if it only has 3 legs, but he still barks, licks your face, smells other dogs' rear ends, and generally interacts with others of it's kind in a different way than it does with others that aren't of it's kind. — Harry Hindu
And what if it stops barking? And then licking your face? And then smelling other dog's rear ends? This is a sorites problem that could only appear in a philosophy forum.
Frankly, if your argument hinges upon "having four legs is not a basic, inherent, natural trait of being a dog", then there isn't much more to discuss. — Mariner
Ok.What makes angels supernatural, and hobbits not? "Divinity"? - another imaginary word? — Harry Hindu
Look at the dictionary. Your answer is there. — Mariner
If having four legs were an inherent trait of being a dog, then what prevents you from labeling all four-legged animals, "dogs"? — Harry Hindu
The idea in someone's head that triggered the use of the word is what the word means, as the intent to communicate that idea existed prior to the use of the word. The meaning of words has nothing to do with their use. It has everything to do with the intent of the communicator. If "meaning" were use, then the word, "God", wouldn't refer to anything - not even the idea in someone's head. It would only refer to the use. So, god isn't a divine entity, not even an imaginary one? God is simply some use of some scribbles? Does that make sense? — Harry Hindu
It is the shared meaning of the word that I learned. — Harry Hindu
It is. But we can bridge that gap a couple of ways:The problem is that it's quite a leap to go from "the first cause doesn't behave according to the laws of physics" to "the first cause is God". — Michael
I see your point. We just need to differentiate between the epistemological order and metaphysical order of the two words. Epistemologically, we humans first experience the natural world and then may call some things supernatural when these don't behave as per the laws of our natural world. Metaphysically however, the supernatural is the cause of the natural, and thus existed prior to it. Sure, you can switch the labels around if desired, as long as the definitions are clear to everyone. For practical purposes though, I would stick to the conventional definitions.The structure AND meaning of the word, "supernatural", shows that it stems from the world, "natural", which means that it is dependent upon the existence of the natural, which means that the natural came first and then the supernatural. — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.