Many logicians support that logic is part of science. Philosophers of science do so. — some logician

Ad populam or ad authoritatem is not a scientific explanation.

Nullius in verba.

I think logic is part of science. Logic is included in science. — some logician

You may believe so, but you have no scientific explanation for your belief. It is, therefore, false.

All valid arguments are whose conclusions necessarily follow from their premises. — some logician

An interesting discussion may ensue if you observe that there is no scientific explanation for this either.

Maybe there is. — some logician

You are not acquainted with science, then, if you think "Maybe there is" is a scientific argument.

Premise 1. If there is no scientific explanation about God, then there is no reason to believe in God. — some logician

There is no scientific explanation about the OP, therefore there is no reason to believe in the OP.

Free will is the obverse of determinism. Each requires the other to have any meaning, and we cannot make sense of one in the absence of the other. The attempts to divide this pair and say that this half is "what is true/exists" while the other is "an illusion" are, all of them, illusions :D.

Hypocrisy. Did you not point out that because "supernatural" wasn't part of the definition of "hobbit" then hobbits aren't supernatural? — Harry Hindu

No, I didn't.

But enjoy your thread. If you are happy to discard "supernatural" even while you use the word, I won't hold any grudges.

Well, if you are asking about the idea of "supernaturality", then it has been from the beginning associated with divinity, since deities were pretty much defined as being immortal (i.e. beyond the realm of birth -- and death). But if you are asking about the word itself, and about the hierarchical relationship implied in the prefix "super", this is clearly related to the "dedivinization of nature" which took place through the influence of Christianity.

To an ancient Egyptian, it was obvious that the gods were beyond the realm of impermanence; the stories about the birth of the gods took place in the time before time, and their death was a contradiction. But this ancient Egyptian would not have a concept of "nature", bereft of all divinity, to contrast with the gods.

It is obvious once you think of it, there can't be language referring to the supernatural before there has been a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, and this distinction will always take the form of a retreat of the gods, since the original viewpoint of mankind was one in which deities interacted with non-deities constantly.

The origin of Hobbits has not been explained so that makes them supernatural, no? — Harry Hindu

No. Supernatural (according to the dictionary, Merriam-Webster for example) is

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

Hobbits fall into none of these possibilities.

Note that you are operating with a concept of "supernatural" which involves "the origins of", something which is clearly not present in the dictionary definition.

To recap (since my first post in the thread): natural pertains to birth. Supernatural pertains to what is beyond and above the realm of birth. This is the originary meaning of the word.

What matters for our discussion (which has been going round and round): is the supposition that "nothing supernatural exists physically" (i.e., that everything that exists in an observable, physical sense is natural) enough to suggest that we should stop using the word "supernatural"?

Curiously enough, since the word has just been used by you in reference to the unknown origin of hobbits, you have just confirmed the point being made all along -- "supernatural" as a word performs a useful role and hence should be kept, regardless of whether supernatural beings exist physically.

We are now in agreement that four-leggedness isn't an inherent feature of dogs because it's not in the definition... — Harry Hindu

I don't agree with that.

We are also in agreement that to define something properly, you need to include ALL of it's inherent features or qualities... — Harry Hindu

Don't agree with that either.

We are in agreement that an inherent feature of all things is that they possess more than one inherent feature or quality that distinguishes it from some things — Harry Hindu

Bordering on tautological, so yes, I could agree with that, but I haven't agreed backthread, and it would be offtopic anyway.

(Whew!) Now that's over with, what were you saying about "supernatural" again? — Harry Hindu

I'll stick with "you have to read more carefully", given your interpretation of what I agree with.

The only thing I'm arguing for now, because you seem to have given up on the primary discussion of "supernatural" vs. "natural", is that things have more than one inherent feature. Period — Harry Hindu

You are arguing by yourself, since no one here ever disputed this.

And I didn't say the definitions of angels and hobbits included the word supernatural/natural.

You have to read more carefully.

@Harry Hindu

You are arguing against this:

...the inherent feature of some thing is that it has four-legs... — Harry Hindu

When the claim that is being made (in accordance with your proposed definition of nature) is

...the an inherent feature of some thing is that it has four-legs... — Harry Hindu

You should revise your arguments accordingly.

To expound on my earlier answer: "All As are Bs" does not imply that all B's are A's.

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

Logic.

Then having, three, four, or no legs isn't an inherent trait of being a dog. — Harry Hindu

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.

What makes angels supernatural, and hobbits not? "Divinity"? - another imaginary word? — Harry Hindu

Look at the dictionary. Your answer is there. (And by the way, neither Supernatural nor Divinity is an imaginary word. I can see it with my eyes in my screen. Stick to your definitions).

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

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.

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

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?

Any ethical worldview will hinge upon a conception of the human being. Such a conception underlies any talk of harm or benefit.

To use the example of coveting your neighbor's wife -- even if all three parties concerned are willing, there may be inadvertent harm. (In other words, one cannot presume that voluntary acceptance is sufficient to prevent harm; it is necessary to argue for it, and any such argument will proceed from a conception of the human being).

An old conception of the role of ethics may be useful. Human life is akin to a fleet of ships. For any fleet to complete a successful voyage, three aspects must be addressed:

1) The condition of each individual ship
2) The organization of the fleet
3) The route taken

Similarly, in ethics, one must address:

1) The condition of the individual person
2) Interpersonal relationships
3) The goal of one's life (and of society too).

***

All that said, the razor of minimizing harm is a good first approximation.

"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

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."

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.

***

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).

Been there, done that (haven't we all?).

But then the best reply is Forrest Gump's: Stupid is as stupid does.

What is the distinction you are seeing that I'm not? — Harry Hindu

To use your words:

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

Note that the definition of "nature" addresses the "physical world", i.e., it specifically distinguishes the referent of the world from non-physical aspects.

Note also that "non-physical" is not at all synonymous with "supernatural". Numbers, concepts, values, all of them are non-physical, and most people would not call them supernatural.

Well, a degree in Philosophy is not "philosophy". It depends on what you want do do with it. Degrees are instruments, and instruments require goals.

Now, if you were asking about whether the study of philosophy is useful, it would be a different question. (Most philosophers throughout history did not have degrees in philosophy).

Most of all, is your vocation teaching philosophy at some educational institution? If it is, then a degree is probably essential. If it isn't, then it all depends on what would be the better uses of your time :).

Omnipotence (and other omni-attributes) are not to be construed as positively defined. It is not as if there were a virtual list of "possible actions" and the omnipotent being would be able to do all of them. Omnipotence is rather a negative attribute -- the omnipotent being is one which lacks any kind of extrinsic limit / boundary to its actions.

In other words, if an omnipotent being does not do X, it is because of an intrinsic constraint -- there are no extrinsic constraints on the actions of an omnipotent being.

If God does not create a rock which cannot be lifted, this is not because of an extrinsic limitation.

In traditional theology, there are two ways to interpret this state of affairs. One, which I call the Muslim* one, is to say that God's power trumps God's rationality (which is our own rationality too). In other words, God can very well create a rock which cannot be lifted, and if we say this is a contradiction, that's our problem. God's ways are not our own. The other, which I call the Scholastic* one, is to say that God's rationality (and our own) trumps God's power, i.e., that God's reach does not extend to creating rocks which cannot be lifted, because this would be contrary to reason, and reason (aka Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity) is God's being itself.

Note that in both accounts God is omnipotent (i.e. lacks extrinsic constraints).

* Muslim vs. Scholastics are merely useful placeholders. There are exceptions in both traditions which would be more comfortable in the other team. But the majority in each school follows something close to what is outlined above.

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

"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".

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

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).

most of the great philosophers' works are based on argument, not blind reference to the authority of the divine or incomprehensible. — jkop

That does not an atheist make.

The clergy used to be brutal beyond comprehension. — jkop

The problem is that people don't accept that meaning, often because of its historical baggage... — Mariner

Sure, many of the great philosophers lived in societies in which they could be murdered if they would admit being agnostic or atheist. — jkop

If you are implying that many of the great philosophers were closet agnostics or atheists, I'd say that this is an ad-hoc, non-philosophical arbitrary assumption, made exclusively for the purpose of comprehending things beyond comprehension.

Quips aside (and that goes for SophistiCat as well), the debate about atheism is inconclusive because people don't agree on what the word "God" (or, "gods") refer to. If you accept the meaning given to the word by the "great philosophers" who wrote about it, then close to 0% of philosophers (great or small) would disagree about the existence and relevance of it. The problem is that people don't accept that meaning, often because of its historical baggage, which is a non-sequitur anyway. It is more a problem of semantics than a problem of ontology.

34% religious on a philosophy forum! :-O — jkop

Yes, it's strange. Both this forum and its former incarnation are slanted towards atheism. In a survey of philosophers through history (which are not to be confused with people who write about philosophy -- including members of internet forums), the number of religious people would be far greater.

If there is a causal relationship with the "supernatural" and "natural" then they must be part of the same reality - the natural one - and any distinction that we make would be arbitrary and anthropomorphic. — Harry Hindu

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.

If nature is defined as what has been scientifically explained, then once everything is explained, what use would the word, "supernatural" have? — Harry Hindu

Let's suppose a dummy universe, with only a few laws (say, 3), which are discoverable by its inhabitants. They discover the first law, and call this the law of nature. And they refer to the events under the influence of the other 2 laws by the word, "supernatural".

In such a universe, once the other two laws are discovered, yes, the word "supernatural" would become obsolete (in talking about physics -- not in talking about history).

Whether or not our universe is analogous to this dummy universe, of course, is a metaphysical (not a scientific) question. Even in the dummy universe, people would never be sure that there weren't new laws waiting to be discovered (the number of laws is not apparent to them). Even if we define supernatural as "whatever has not been explained so far", it seems that there will always be scope for speculating about it.

Worthy of note is that these definitions of natural and supernatural (both referring to explainability) are surely not how the word is used, nor how it was etymologically derived.

Why are you suggesting I said there was an opposition or a contradiction? My point was that there is a filtering or constraint that is core to the method. — apokrisis

It is "core" for those who embarked on the romantic journey of discovery, not otherwise.

But our disagreement seems to be one of emphasis.

Because there are a lot of people that still believe that humans are separate from nature, "artificial" still has it's uses to communicate with those people. — Harry Hindu

Ok, then the point made way back when, that "natural" would lose its usefulness (in metaphysical discourse) if the word "supernatural" were discarded is still cogent.

If knowing your intent is enough, then context isn't necessary to communicate. — Harry Hindu

This means that whenever knowing my intent is not enough, context is necessary to communicate. Which is what I'm claiming.

Our differences seem to be more of emphasis than of content.

In any case, we can [begin to] go back to the theme of the thread. Would you say that the word "artificial" should not be used, whatever the context, and whatever the intent of the speaker? This seemed to be your claim, let me know if it stands as formulated.

The results of a survey[9] released in November of 2009 found a massive 67 percent of Turks said 'they would continue acting in accordance with their religious beliefs if the Parliament passed a law that contradicted religious laws.' and only 'Twenty-six percent said they would obey the country’s law in this case'. As is evident; even in 'moderate' 'secular' nations like Turkey, we find that the majority of its population (in accordance with Sahih Bukhari 9:89:258) refuse to accept the authority of its government when they deem its man-made laws contrary to that which is prescribed in the Shari'ah.

I would hope most Christians (and members of any other religions) would emulate or improve upon these results. (Yeah, fat chance). To disobey the government when the government passes a law contradicting religious laws is the duty (of conscience) of any believer.

Separation of Church and State does not, in its original theory, mean handing all power to the State, even though the actual practice of it for the last few centuries certainly points in that direction. It meant that the State would not meddle in religious affairs (whether by favoring some groups by the use of its power or by actively interfering in dogmatic disputes), and the religious groups would not try to meddle with the State (by using the power of the State to impose their religious laws upon non-believers).

Perhaps Separation of Church and State is another of those good ideas which simply cannot take hold upon human groups for long enough.

Tripping him up was what you intended to achieve by what you said; it's not the meaning of what you said. — Srap Tasmaner

Yep, but what you just said is not what he said :D.

These are not the only possibilities, of course. It is possible that I did not know what I wanted. It is possible that I wanted to take the discussion into self-reference territory (which is not tripping anyone up). It is possible that I wanted to make a point.

What is for sure after an examination of the possibilities is that context is necessary. Words without contexts (in this case, a thread in a forum) don't have meaning. Sure, intent is also necessary, and since the intent is vague in this case, we are fencing in the dark, but the claim that context plays no role has been falsified.

You are promoting a romantic individual journey of discovery, but the core to philosophical method is that arguments get made and people remember those that seem the most worth considering. Just think of the way Plato and Aristotle spent so much time analysing what others had said. — apokrisis

There is no contradiction, or even opposition, between a "romantic journey of discovery" and "people remember those [arguments] that seem the most worth considering". The "people" who do the remembering are those who embark in the romantic journey of discovery. This is why we read more Plato than Protagoras -- because Plato relates much more to who we are and to our own journeys.

Mystics distinguish between the physical and the metaphysical and search for a way to transcend the physical in order to become one with the metaphysical.
The religious separate the two and search for their in-between link in order to interact with the metaphysical.
Philosophers recognize their interdependency and search for a way to reconcile them in order to define the world. — Noblosh

And some of them even find it :D. Surely, after a romantic journey of discovery.

Isn't that the idea you had in your mind just prior to you typing the word on the screen? — Harry Hindu

So, Trump is not merely the person or the card, it is also the idea of tripping someone up -- assuming you interpreted my intent correctly.

Curious.

Words can refer to things that are not in their dictionary definitions ("Trump" just did that), depending on the context. Which means the context (here, a philosophical discussion) has a role. That's all I'm pointing out here.

It is what they intend to say, but don't get it out right, or when the listener doesn't interpret the intent properly, that results in miscommunication. — Harry Hindu

Yes. I don't disagree with that (not with what Srap Tasmaner said. But it doesn't go far enough when it dismisses any relevance of context.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you :D. But you did say that meaning is "not derived at all" from context, and this seems to contradict the experience of any proficient language user.

I'm sure we can reach a formulation that gives the proper weight to the speaker's intent and to context without dismissing one or the other.

After we reach that formulation, we can examine once again whether discarding any word (be it "Trump", a quite ambiguous word, or "artificial", a much less ambiguous one) can be justified on account of it being useless in a given context, even though it is useful in another.

So how is philosophical method meant to distinguish between the use of argumentation as a sophistical prop vs as a true means of inquiry? — apokrisis

First of all, by acknowledging that argumentation can be used for both purposes, and therefore cannot be the core of philosophy.

After this step is over (and it is not an easy step), one is usually at a loss to understand what philosophy is about; and then the best thing to do is to go back to the sources (by which I don't even mean Plato, I mean Socrates). How would one distinguish Socrates from, say, Protagoras? Aristophanes had trouble with that, and it is safe to say many people would have problems too. Both presented themselves as a kind of teacher, both had followers, both were competitors in the "academic field". True, Protagoras and the other people known as 'the sophists' used to charge good fees, and Socrates didn't, but is this a good criterion? Would Protagoras be a philosopher if he did not charge good fees for his lessons?

I could give an answer of my own to this problem, but the core of philosophy involves finding one's own answer and, as it were, picking sides between philosophers and sophists. Indeed, philosophy requires sophistry as a contrast. Both are manifestations of the human psyche in response to the shattering of the mythical worldview. But they are not the same, and they are not equally valuable.

X is subjective if it varies, freely, according to different subjects. X is objective (in ethics -- in ontology this would have to be expanded) if it is true independent of any subject's stance towards it.

"I should not rape" is subjective because many people disagree with it. And it is objective because I should not rape. (In other words, because those who disagree with it are wrong). Note that when I use words like "wrong" and "should" I'm subtly invoking objectivity. Ethical propositions occupy the border between subject and object.

"I prefer chocolate to vanilla" is subjective (because many people disagree with it), but it is not objective (people who disagree with it are not wrong).

"2+2=4" is not subjective (people who understand the meaning of the symbols never disagree with it), and it is objective (because if someone disagreed with it, he would be wrong).

Not-subjective nor-objective examples would have to enter the realm of nonsense (like, "my hunger is green since q"), since language, used properly, has an intrinsic subjective/objective structure, which is why both words (subjective/objective) are used in grammar in specialized senses.

Superior and inferior in what way? — Agustino

In whatever way matters to you, the one displaying the emotional response. It is not "ethically" superior, or "intrinsically" superior, which is how you are interpreting it. A small dog annoys you, a lion makes you afraid. You are superior to both in many ways, but clearly inferior to the lion in the aspect which matters the most in that particular interaction.

If you are angry at some bureaucrat, it is because you perceive that you have a right which is not being served (i.e., that you have reason on your side, and that third parties would side with you). If you are afraid of the same bureaucrat, it shows that you perceive yourself to be wrong. At least in the eyes of some third party.

It is the difference between the consciencious objector and the soldier who flees from service. The first is angry, the second is afraid. (Remember that people can and very often do deceive themselves to hide the reasons of their emotions).

Nah, strike that out. It will probably open an off-topic debate, it is a controversial claim.