Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[JimL]

Well...sort of. I'm not sure "natural defines this world" is an accurate statement. This world/universe is described as "natural" because it has characteristics consistent with both definitions of the term (i.e., not created by humans, and investigatable via science or the scientific method).

At the end of the day, I think Seer's problem has to do with assignment of "things" into one group or the other. His complaint is just badly worded. I don't think he's saying "how do you know supernatural things aren't investigatable" because that question makes no sense. As I said - he's approaching it backwards. A thing is "supernatural" because it is "not investigatable," not the other way around. I think what he is trying to say is "how do you know that things commonly classified as 'supernatural' aren't actually investigatable and therefore perfectly natural?"

And if I don't have that right, then I don't have a clue WHAT his issue with natural and supernatural are...

Yep, hard to figure what he's getting at exactly, but I think what he is trying to do is to equate the created, which is what he believes about this world, with the creator. In other words he's trying to argue that if this universe is created, then like it's creator, it is supernatural, if not created, then it is natural. But of course, as shown, we already have terms defining that possibility, i.e. creator, and created. I'm sure he doesn't want to argue that the created is the creator, that they are one and the same thing. Basically he just wants to affirm his belief that god exists and is the creator of all that exists, therefore all that exists is supernatural. It's a word game!

[Tassman]

Of course you are begging the question. Why call a material universe that can be studied natural? That is no more and an arbitrary assertion. And I certainly would call my computer, at least, extra natural. In that the non-rational forces of nature could not create a computer under its own steam. It take intelligence.

The natural universe is assumed by science to be the real universe and methodological naturalism is an essential aspect of the methodology of science. Science assumes that all causes are empirical and naturalistic, which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically. In so doing vast amounts of knowledge has been accumulated.

Conversely, the assumption that the universe is supernatural is supported by no substantive evidence and, unlike a naturalistic universe, remains no more than a faith-based world view and produced no new knowledge whatsoever..

Again you have zero evidence that previous natural forces created this universe or could.

No. YOU have zero evidence that supernatural forces created this universe or could.

Why call the laws of nature "natural." What is natural about them?

See above.

[seer]

The natural universe is assumed by science to be the real universe and methodological naturalism is an essential aspect of the methodology of science. Science assumes that all causes are empirical and naturalistic, which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically. In so doing vast amounts of knowledge has been accumulated.

Conversely, the assumption that the universe is supernatural is supported by no substantive evidence and, unlike a naturalistic universe, remains no more than a faith-based world view and produced no new knowledge whatsoever..

Tass, something (by the definition that Carp posted) that is made by human hands is not natural. For the sake of argument, would a universe created by the hand of God be natural in your view?

[carpedm9587]

Tass, something (by the definition that Carp posted) that is made by human hands is not natural. For the sake of argument, would a universe created by the hand of God be natural in your view?

What on earth does the former have to do with the latter?

[seer]

In this case...yes...a tad. Your "issue" around this somewhat fascinates me. I'm used to your arguments not having actual content (i.e., the whole morality discussion, for example), but I have to admit that this is the first time I've seen you trying to redefine words or complain that words shouldn't mean what they are defined to mean.

The whole thing is so odd...it fascinates me. I guess I'm trying to fathom the logic behind it...

The logic Carp, is the idea that the supernatural can not be investigated. There is no deductive or objective argument that can support that arbitrary assumption. Let me ask you what I asked Tass, would a universe created by the hand of God be natural in your view? In what sense would it be natural?

[JimL]

The logic Carp, is the idea that the supernatural can not be investigated. There is no deductive or objective argument that can support that arbitrary assumption. Let me ask you what I asked Tass, would a universe created by the hand of God be natural in your view? In what sense would it be natural?

What do you consider to be natural? Nothing? Is god natural or supernatural? Why? What makes god supernatural? You're just playing with words. The basis of your argument is; "the universe was created, therefore it, like its creator, is supernatural too." So, all you are trying to do is to say; "I believe in god and creation." We know!

[seer]

What do you consider to be natural? Nothing?

Exactly.

Is god natural or supernatural? Why? What makes god supernatural? You're just playing with words. The basis of your argument is; "the universe was created, therefore it, like its creator, is supernatural too." So, all you are trying to do is to say; "I believe in god and creation." We know!

So let me ask you Jim; would a universe created by the hand of God be natural in your view? In what sense would it be natural?

[JimL]

Exactly.




So let me ask you Jim; would a universe created by the hand of God be natural in your view? In what sense would it be natural?

Seer, unless there is a natural, then there is no such thing as supernatural. So the answer would be yes, everything would be natural, including god. Don't you see the semantical game you are playing? So, let me ask you this, is god natural or supernatural?

[carpedm9587]

The logic Carp, is the idea that the supernatural can not be investigated. There is no deductive or objective argument that can support that arbitrary assumption.

Of course not. There is also no logical argument that the word "rock" mean "the solid mineral material forming part of the surface of the earth and other similar planets, exposed on the surface or underlying the soil or oceans." That is what we have defined the word to mean. So when we find something that matches the definition of "rock" we call it "rock."

Likewise, we have defined the word "supernatural" to mean "the collection of things not investigatable by science." So when we find something matching the description of "supernatural" we call it "supernatural."

Let me ask you what I asked Tass, would a universe created by the hand of God be natural in your view?

If it is investigatable by science - yes. If it is not - no. That's what the word means (one definition, anyway).

In what sense would it be natural?

If the universe operates on predictable/repeatable/intelligible principles that science can investigate, then the universe qualifies as "natural," by definition. That's what the word means (one definition, anyway). It is also NOT made by human hands, which is the other definition of "natural."

[carpedm9587]

Seer, unless there is a natural, then there is no such thing as supernatural. So the answer would be yes, everything would be natural, including god. Don't you see the semantical game you are playing? So, let me ask you this, is god natural or supernatural?

Umm.. I disagree. The concepts of "natural" and "supernatural" are opposites (by one definition), but the real existence of one does not require the real existence of the other, in either direction. By way of example, clockwise and counterclockwise are opposites. But there is no requirement for anything to actually spin clockwise in order for something to be able to spin counterclockwise. Likewise, one can conceive of a universe in which science can investigate nothing because everything is supernatural. If we were actually IN that universe, I doubt the concept of "science" would even be created - and the word "natural" would probably never exist. We have the words because we are speculating from the context of THIS universe.

[seer]

Seer, unless there is a natural, then there is no such thing as supernatural. So the answer would be yes, everything would be natural, including god. Don't you see the semantical game you are playing? So, let me ask you this, is god natural or supernatural?

You don't have to call it all supernatural, these are terms we invent. Just say there is nothing natural as we presently define it.

[carpedm9587]

You don't have to call it all supernatural, these are terms we invent. Just say there is nothing natural as we presently define it.

I continue to be perplexed about your objection to a word. There are things science can investigate, and things science cannot. We call the former "natural" and the later "supernatural." I have no clue why you are so caught up with this issue. It seems such a non-issue. It's literally like saying, "I don't like the word 'rock;' let's call it something else."

[seer]

Of course not. There is also no logical argument that the word "rock" mean "the solid mineral material forming part of the surface of the earth and other similar planets, exposed on the surface or underlying the soil or oceans." That is what we have defined the word to mean. So when we find something that matches the definition of "rock" we call it "rock."

But there is no objective physical characteristic to distinguish between the natural and supernatural

Likewise, we have defined the word "supernatural" to mean "the collection of things not investigatable by science." So when we find something matching the description of "supernatural" we call it "supernatural."

But that is just made up without rational justification. Without begging the question or arguing in a circle. You can not ground that in a objective physical characteristic like with the rock.

If it is investigatable by science - yes. If it is not - no. That's what the word means (one definition, anyway).

You would not consider a computer natural (made by human hands) - correct?

If the universe operates on predictable/repeatable/intelligible principles that science can investigate, then the universe qualifies as "natural," by definition. That's what the word means (one definition, anyway). It is also NOT made by human hands, which is the other definition of "natural."

Human hands just means created by an intelligence, as opposed to something created by the non-rational forces of nature. If God (an intelligence) created the universe it would not by definition be "natural."

[carpedm9587]

But there is no objective physical characteristic to distinguish between the natural and supernatural

Sure there is: what science can and cannot investigate. It's not a complicated thing, Seer. Why you don't get it is beyond me.

But that is just made up without rational justification. Without begging the question or arguing in a circle. You can not ground that in a objective physical characteristic like with the rock.

Of course we can. Not sure why you cannot see it. If someone proposes something that science cannot investigate, it is classified as "supernatural." If someone says, "wait, I just thought of a way to investigate it!" then it will probably be reclassified as "natural." Simple. It's what we do all the time. That thing gets classified as "rock" until someone shows that it's actually a block of sand glued together by some algae...then we say "guess that wasn't a rock after all."

You would not consider a computer natural (made by human hands) - correct?

And you just switched definitions again. It's like having a discussion with someone about "belts" and they can't keep "belt as a drink" and "belt as a thing to hold up your pants" straight.

A computer is "natural" by the "can be investigated by science" definition (the opposite of which is 'supernatural.'). It is not natural by the "not made by human hands" definition (the opposite of which is usually "unnatural" or "not natural").

Human hands just means created by an intelligence, as opposed to something created by the non-rational forces of nature. If God (an intelligence) created the universe it would not by definition be "natural."

I know of no definition of "natural" that involves "made by gods." Maybe you need a new word - or perhaps "supernatural" will do since the notion of god is also of the supernatural realm. As for the "intelligence versus not intelligence," you seem to have added that. There is nothing in the definition I find that suggests that.

[seer]

Sure there is: what science can and cannot investigate. It's not a complicated thing, Seer. Why you don't get it is beyond me.

Justify that distinction logically (without arguing in a circle).

And you just switched definitions again. It's like having a discussion with someone about "belts" and they can't keep "belt as a drink" and "belt as a thing to hold up your pants" straight.

A computer is "natural" by the "can be investigated by science" definition (the opposite of which is 'supernatural.'). It is not natural by the "not made by human hands" definition (the opposite of which is usually "unnatural" or "not natural").

So a computer is both natural and not natural?

I know of no definition of "natural" that involves "made by gods." Maybe you need a new word - or perhaps "supernatural" will do since the notion of god is also of the supernatural realm. As for the "intelligence versus not intelligence," you seem to have added that. There is nothing in the definition I find that suggests that.

When we say made by human hands Carp we are speaking of intelligence (or the rational) making something not found or made by the non-rational forces of nature (like our computer). Why you would disagree with this is beyond me.