Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[carpedm9587]

I don't care about common usage, I made my points as to why the distinction between natural and supernatural make no sense. Largely because we have no reference point, no way to compare. No way to categorize in any objective sense. The distinctions are not based on knowable criterion.

Actually - you did no such thing (i.e., made your points) - which is what you still do not seem to get. The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is perfectly simple and perfectly clear: what aligns with the laws of nature that science can investigate, and what does not. There is no confusion here. There is no lack of "sense." Your objection is not about the meaning of the word, but rather how they are applied to X, Y, or Z. Your objection is that there are things labeled "supernatural" that we cannot KNOW cannot be investigated and do not align with some form of natural law. I actually don't disagree with that. But you have framed your argument in meaningless gibberish, attempting to redefine words because "you don't like what they mean" instead of simply pointing out that it is difficult to know that any application of "supernatural" is correct because we don't know what principles things like gods and angels and demons MIGHT be working on.

Frankly, there is no response to that objection. What we have labeled "supernatural" is, as best we can tell, outside of anything science can explore or any natural laws we have access to. There is no compelling evidence that they exist anywhere outside of the human imagination. So anyone can say pretty much anything about them, and the rest of us can only nod and say, "ok...if that's what you think." We cannot show that Zeus does not conform to a "higher principle. We cannot show that Vishnu does not conform to a "higher principle." Heck, we cannot show that Merlin does not conform to a "higher principle." We can't make ANY definitive statements about something that cannot be shown to be real. So, until someone can show these things actually ARE investigatable and actually DO conform to some form of "law" or "principle," we will likely continue to see them as "supernatural."

Nice ad hominem, and hypocritical since you have often been caught arguing in circles on moral questions. And where exactly did I argue in a circle on this issue? My basic objections are stated above, what is circular?

So first, an ad hominem is a comment that addresses the person rather than the arguments. "Seer (or Carpe) is a blithering idiot that shows no signs of intelligence" is an ad hominem. NOting the weakness of someone's arguments is not an ad hominem because it is about the arguments, not the person.

As for "being caught arguing in circles" on moral issues, Seer, you are (frankly) in no position to even begin to assess that. You are continuously oblivious to the content-free nature of your arguments, so you have essentially no basis for critiquing mine.

Finally, my statement "content-free circles" was not intended to be a claim that you had made the logical error of assuming your conclusion, so perhaps I should have chosen a different word. The point is, Seer, that you keep making points that are easily agreed to (i.e., language definition is arbitrary) and then deriving from them conclusions that are largely unsustainable by the observation. And you essentially refute your position just by posting. After all, if the meaning of words are arbitrary and so subject to change on a whim, how is it you can even write a sentence and expect anyone to understand it!? Like the rest of us, you depend on words having commonly accepted meaning just so you can communicate with us...but then complain that it's all arbitrary.

It is just a tad funny. Maybe that's why I find myself continually coming back to it.

[JimL]

But Carp, you already agreed that most definitions are arbitrary. This is more so when we come to something we don't understand - the actual distinction between natural or supernatural. Saying that the supernatural is something that is not investigatable is an unknowable claim, a mere assertion with no rational or objective justification.

seer, answer this please. Why is god considered to be supernatural rather than natural? If your answer is 'because there is no such thing as natural' then the "super" in supernatural just becomes an arbitrary term having no meaning. You might have a better argument asserting that god, if he/she/it exists uncreated, is natural, and that the universe is supernatural, i.e. created. But of course, that would just be your belief. We don't know that a god exists, or that the universe was created, therefore we call the universe natural.

[seer]

Actually - you did no such thing (i.e., made your points) - which is what you still do not seem to get. The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is perfectly simple and perfectly clear: what aligns with the laws of nature that science can investigate, and what does not. There is no confusion here. There is no lack of "sense." Your objection is not about the meaning of the word, but rather how they are applied to X, Y, or Z. Your objection is that there are things labeled "supernatural" that we cannot KNOW cannot be investigated and do not align with some form of natural law. I actually don't disagree with that. But you have framed your argument in meaningless gibberish, attempting to redefine words because "you don't like what they mean" instead of simply pointing out that it is difficult to know that any application of "supernatural" is correct because we don't know what principles things like gods and angels and demons MIGHT be working on.

Frankly, there is no response to that objection. What we have labeled "supernatural" is, as best we can tell, outside of anything science can explore or any natural laws we have access to. There is no compelling evidence that they exist anywhere outside of the human imagination. So anyone can say pretty much anything about them, and the rest of us can only nod and say, "ok...if that's what you think." We cannot show that Zeus does not conform to a "higher principle. We cannot show that Vishnu does not conform to a "higher principle." Heck, we cannot show that Merlin does not conform to a "higher principle." We can't make ANY definitive statements about something that cannot be shown to be real. So, until someone can show these things actually ARE investigatable and actually DO conform to some form of "law" or "principle," we will likely continue to see them as "supernatural."

No Carp, that is not what I'm saying. Again you don't know what natural is anymore than you know what supernatural is. You keep claiming that the supernatural cannot be investigated - you don't know that. You can say that is how we commonly use the term, fine - but you (we) have no rational or objective justification for that definition. You claim that natural = repeatable, predictable, intelligible principles. But why? How do you know that apart from simply accepting common notions? You don't. You whole argument revolves around the accepted usage of words were we have no idea if the definitions correspond to reality or not.

[seer]

seer, answer this please. Why is god considered to be supernatural rather than natural? If your answer is 'because there is no such thing as natural' then the "super" in supernatural just becomes an arbitrary term having no meaning. You might have a better argument asserting that god, if he/she/it exists uncreated, is natural, and that the universe is supernatural, i.e. created. But of course, that would just be your belief. We don't know that a god exists, or that the universe was created, therefore we call the universe natural.

Jim by definition I don't believe anything is "natural."

[JimL]

Jim by definition I don't believe anything is "natural."

Think about that seer. It doesn't make any sense. Supernatural only makes sense if the natural exists.

[seer]

Think about that seer. It doesn't make any sense. Supernatural only makes sense if the natural exists.

Right that is why neither make sense, IMHO. We are basing definitions on something we have no clue about.

[JimL]

Right that is why neither make sense, IMHO. We are basing definitions on something we have no clue about.

Prove empirically that the universe, what we call the natural world, was created by another distinct from the universe entity, and then you can assert that the term "natural" makes no sense. Naturally basically means, uncreated by man or god,- natural.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, that is not what I'm saying. Again you don't know what natural is anymore than you know what supernatural is.

Yes, I do. Natural is what aligns with known natural laws and can be investigated by science. Supernatural is what does not and cannot.

You keep claiming that the supernatural cannot be investigated - you don't know that.

Yes, I do. It's what the word means.

You can say that is how we commonly use the term, fine - but you (we) have no rational or objective justification for that definition.

We have no "rational" or "objective" justification for ANY definition. Words simply represent concepts and realities and mean what we define them to mean. "Supernatural" means "does not conform to known natural laws and cannot be investigated by science."

You claim that natural = repeatable, predictable, intelligible principles. But why?

Because that is how we have defined the term.

How do you know that apart from simply accepting common notions? You don't.

Your correct; I don't...


...because that's how language works. Words are defined by common usage.

You whole argument revolves around the accepted usage of words were we have no idea if the definitions correspond to reality or not.

For the record, I'm not actually making an argument about anything. I'm simply continually showing you how language works. For instance, again, you are doing the language thing backwards. Let me show you how it works.

We see a lot of things that have some common characteristics. We coin the word "rock" for this collection of things and define the term rock to reflect those characteristics. Then we look at object A - if it has the characteristics associated with our definition, we say, "that is a rock." Then we look at Object B - if it doesn't have the characteristics associated with our definition, we say, "that is not a rock." See how easy that is?

Now let's do it with "natural." We see a lot of things that have some common characteristics. We define the word "natural" to refer to this collection of things and define it to reflect those characteristics (repeatable, predictable, intelligible principles*) . Then we look at Object A - if it has the characteristics associated with our definition, we say, "that is natural." Then we look at Object B - if it doesn't have the characteristics associated with our definition, we say, "that is not natural." See how easy that is?

You keep tripping over yourself, Seer. I have the impression you think you're making an argument of some kind, but (as with the morality discussion) there is no actual content to your argument. You simply (apparently) don't understand how language works.

*actually, that's more the definition of "natural law" than "natural," but close enough for government work

[carpedm9587]

Jim by definition I don't believe anything is "natural."

Substituting the definition, you have just said, "I don't believe anything behaves according to repeatable, predictable intelligible principles that can be investigated by science." You see how difficult it is to take you seriously? Your everyday life proves that statement is not true.

[carpedm9587]

Prove empirically that the universe, what we call the natural world, was created by another distinct from the universe entity, and then you can assert that the term "natural" makes no sense. Naturally basically means, uncreated by man or god,- natural.

Umm...no...I don't think so. At least, I'm not finding any definition that aligns with that one.

[seer]

We have no "rational" or "objective" justification for ANY definition. Words simply represent concepts and realities and mean what we define them to mean. "Supernatural" means "does not conform to known natural laws and cannot be investigated by science."

Sure we do Carp, there are objective verifiable characteristics for a rock or a tree by which we can compare and contrast. No such objective verifiable characteristics exist by which we can compare and contrast the natural and supernatural. Except what we make up? We don't make up characteristics of rocks and trees. We simply observe.

Because that is how we have defined the term.

And how do you know that term is correct? Apart from slavishly accepting common notions?

Your correct; I don't...

Well, I think my work is done here...

[seer]

Substituting the definition, you have just said, "I don't believe anything behaves according to repeatable, predictable intelligible principles that can be investigated by science." You see how difficult it is to take you seriously? Your everyday life proves that statement is not true.

Because I don't believe that repeatable, predictable intelligible principles necessarily equals "natural." But you knew that.

[carpedm9587]

Sure we do Carp, there are objective verifiable characteristics for a rock or a tree by which we can compare and contrast. No such objective verifiable characteristics exist by which we can compare and contrast the natural and supernatural.

And there are objective, verifiable characteristics we can use for natural and supernatural. Those characteristics have been defined multiple times now - so I'll let the previous posts stand.

Except what we make up? We don't make up characteristics of rocks and trees. We simply observe.

And we simply observe all of the things that operate according to repeatable, predictable, intelligible principles that can be investigated by science, and call those things "natural." We use the word "supernatural" for those things that do not have those characteristics.

And how do you know that term is correct?

Because that is how we define it. That is how language works...

Apart from slavishly accepting common notions?

We ALL slavishly accept common definitions, Seer. That's how language works. Every word you have selected for your post has an associated definition and you trust that I know that definition so I can understand your words. How do we know the definition for ANY word is correct? Because it is how the word is commonly used. But in this ONE instance, you object. Your own position is inconsistent.

Well, I think my work is done here...

Yeah, you do like to do that...but it isn't. You still have not said anything intelligible - just cut out one snippet from a post and declared victory. We call that "cherry picking." And all your posts do, post after post, is betray that a) you don't understand how language works, and b) you selectively apply the few principles you do seem to understand.

I know Adrift thinks very highly of your debate style, but I have to admit I don't see it.

[carpedm9587]

Because I don't believe that repeatable, predictable intelligible principles necessarily equals "natural." But you knew that.

So you want the word "natural" to be defined differently than it is defined. We need to have the "Seer dictionary" because Seer doesn't like how common English words are defined. Then we'll need the Adrift dictionary, followed by the CP dictionary and the Sparko dictionary and the Carpe dictionary.

See what I mean about you not understanding how language works? Your objection is...well...somewhat ridiculous. It's like saying "I don't like how people define "vodka" - I want it to mean "a bubbly beverage usually high in sugar content." What on earth is the use of that?

[seer]

And there are objective, verifiable characteristics we can use for natural and supernatural. Those characteristics have been defined multiple times now - so I'll let the previous posts stand.



And we simply observe all of the things that operate according to repeatable, predictable, intelligible principles that can be investigated by science, and call those things "natural." We use the word "supernatural" for those things that do not have those characteristics.

But you already agreed that you don't know if those definition are true. You just accept what your mommy taught you... So you are not saying anything.