Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[carpedm9587]

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

No - I did not. You keep putting those words in my mouth for me, but that doesn't make them mine. Your statement is a ridiculous concatenation of words. You might as well have said "you already banana that houses ugly butterfly laps."

A symbol refers to a reality/thing/concept/idea. If we all use it that way, then that is what that symbol/word means. "Natural" means what it is defined to mean. The idea of the definition being "true/false" can only be measured in one way: is that how the word is conventionally used? If someone says "the definition of 'piano' is 'a round bowl into which people urinate and defecate'" then we know that statement is false because that is NOT the common usage of the word - and not what is in the dictionary.

That means your offered definitions of "natural" are the false ones, because that is not what the word/symbol means. The word of natural is well defined, and you can look it up. That you do not like the definition does not change it anymore than you not liking the definition of "piano" will change it. It will continue to be used and defined as it is commonly used and defined.

So when you say, "I don't believe anything is natural," you are saying, "I don't believe anything behaves according to repeatable, predictable intelligible principles that can be investigated by science." You can claim you're not saying that all day long, and create your own definitions of "natural" all day long, and the rest of us will nod and smile and say, "isn't that nice, Seer just went back into his personal space..."

Meanwhile, "natural" will continue to mean what it means, despite your objections and so-called "arguments."

[seer]

No - I did not. You keep putting those words in my mouth for me, but that doesn't make them mine. Your statement is a ridiculous concatenation of words. You might as well have said "you already banana that houses ugly butterfly laps."

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

A symbol refers to a reality/thing/concept/idea. If we all use it that way, then that is what that symbol/word means. "Natural" means what it is defined to mean. The idea of the definition being "true/false" can only be measured in one way: is that how the word is conventionally used? If someone says "the definition of 'piano' is 'a round bowl into which people urinate and defecate'" then we know that statement is false because that is NOT the common usage of the word - and not what is in the dictionary.

We know that that definition of the piano is incorrect because we can physically observe the piano. We can contrast the physical characteristics of the piano with the bowl. This is knowable, and is not question begging. The contrast between the supernatural and natural is not knowable except by common definitions. Which begs the question.

That means your offered definitions of "natural" are the false ones, because that is not what the word/symbol means.

Why is the common notion of "natural" the correct one and mine wrong? Should we just accept these because that is the way it was done in the past? How does that make them true?

[carpedm9587]

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

The question is meaningless. A word means what the community defines it to mean. That's how language works, which you apparently do not grasp. We're not talking about "logical principles" here. We're talking about what symbol a community selects to represent X. The English speaking community has (through usage) selected the symbol "natural" to refer to "things that operate on predictable, repeatable, intelligible principles that science can understand." That choice can upset you all you want. It's still what the English speaking community has chosen as a symbol for that concept.

We know that that definition of the piano is incorrect because we can physically observe the piano.

No.

We can contrast the physical characteristics of the piano with the bowl. This is knowable, and is not question begging.

No.

The contrast between the supernatural and natural is not knowable except by common definitions. Which begs the question.

No, as I have shown now multiple times (but those parts of my posts seem to magically disappear in your responses - almost as if the points were never made...amazing... ). There is absolutely no difference - except in your mind.

Why is the common notion of "natural" the correct one and mine wrong?

Because language is designed to communicate. To communicate, people have to agree on the meanings of words. You use this principle every single day...regularly...except in this one isolated instance. Your entire argument is built on a selective "vapor." Frankly, Seer, it's not even an argument. I'm not sure what it is. It's some kind of obsession, I guess.

Should we just accept these because that is the way it was done in the past?

Language constantly evolves. As noted...if you begin a new trend on how "natural" is defined, more power to you. It's happened before (cool, groovy, gay, faggot, google, etc.). Until then, all you will do is confuse anyone you talk to because you are using "Seer's spiffy definition" that no one knows or understands. And if you do successfully get a new definition of "natural" adopted, then we'll just end up using another word for "things that operate on predictable, repeatable, intelligible principles that science can understand." After all - despite all of your objection that "natural" and "things that operate on predictable, repeatable, intelligible principles that science can understand" should not be associated with each other, that category of things will continue to exist and continue to need a symbol/name so we can talk without having to say "things that operate on predictable, repeatable, intelligible principles that science can understand" every time.

How does that make them true?

Meaningless question.

[seer]

The question is meaningless. A word means what the community defines it to mean. That's how language works, which you apparently do not grasp. We're not talking about "logical principles" here. We're talking about what symbol a community selects to represent X. The English speaking community has (through usage) selected the symbol "natural" to refer to "things that operate on predictable, repeatable, intelligible principles that science can understand." That choice can upset you all you want. It's still what the English speaking community has chosen as a symbol for that concept.

Again Carp, unlike with the piano and bowl you can not point to any physical characteristics that are usable to contrast the natural and supernatural without arguing in a circle.

No, as I have shown now multiple times (but those parts of my posts seem to magically disappear in your responses - almost as if the points were never made...amazing... ). There is absolutely no difference - except in your mind.

I can point to the physical piano and bowl and contrast the two. It wouldn't even matter what we named them since the physical qualities provide the contrast. The only thing that contrasts the natural and supernatural is our definitions, that do not rest on physical qualities since we are begging the question. Natural=A, Supernatural=B. But how do we know those are true?

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, unlike with the piano and bowl you can not point to any physical characteristics that are usable to contrast the natural and supernatural without arguing in a circle.

Already answered in previous posts: see the definitions of "natural" and "supernatural."

I can point to the physical piano and bowl and contrast the two.

I can point to the distinctions between "sypernatural" and "natural" and contrast the two.

It wouldn't even matter what we named them since the physical qualities provide the contrast. The only thing that contrasts the natural and supernatural is our definitions, that do not rest on physical qualities since we are begging the question. Natural=A, Supernatural=B. But how do we know those are true?

Meaningless question, as has been noted and shown multiple times now.

Sorry, Seer - but I have to admit this discussion is now getting tedious even for me. I'll let you have the last word...(and yes, I know I said that before). You can even claim the "win" if you'd like.

But you and Adrift really should distinguish between "tenacity" and "meaningful debate." They are not the same thing.

[seer]

Already answered in previous posts: see the definitions of "natural" and "supernatural."



I can point to the distinctions between "sypernatural" and "natural" and contrast the two.



Meaningless question, as has been noted and shown multiple times now.

Sorry, Seer - but I have to admit this discussion is now getting tedious even for me. I'll let you have the last word...(and yes, I know I said that before). You can even claim the "win" if you'd like.

But you and Adrift really should distinguish between "tenacity" and "meaningful debate." They are not the same thing.

Really Carp, you can not tell us why those definitions are true, as opposed to merely common.

[JimL]

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

Natural: existing in, or caused by, nature. Supernatural: not existing in, or caused by nature. The former (the natural) could possibly be caused by the latter, ie could be caused by the (supernatural), but it isn't itself supernatural, it would not itself be supernatural. If both existences were one and the same thing, then there would be no reason for the use of two distinct contradictory terms to define them. You could call the whole of existence natural, or you could call the whole of existence supernatural, but calling it supernatural in such a case really wouldn't make any sense logically speaking. seer obviously has a religious agenda so he wants to assert that everything is supernatural, which in itself makes no sense, but what he doesn't realize is that he is espousing in that argument, the notion of panthiesm.

[carpedm9587]

Natural: existing in, or caused by, nature. Supernatural: not existing in, or caused by nature. The former (the natural) could possibly be caused by the latter, ie could be caused by the (supernatural), but it isn't itself supernatural, it would not itself be supernatural. If both existences were one and the same thing, then there would be no reason for the use of two distinct contradictory terms to define them. You could call the whole of existence natural, or you could call the whole of existence supernatural, but calling it supernatural in such a case really wouldn't make any sense logically speaking. seer obviously has a religious agenda so he wants to assert that everything is supernatural, which in itself makes no sense, but what he doesn't realize is that he is espousing in that argument, the notion of panthiesm.

You misunderstood my post. I was specifically referring to the claim, "Naturally basically means, uncreated by man or god,- natural." While there is a variation on "natural" that is about "not created by man," there is no definition I find anywhere that says anything about gods. Now if you want to take Seer's stance that "man" actually means "intelligence," then your definition would hold. However, we've already established that Seer wants to create his own definitions, so I'm not sure what merit that has.

And I'll say as I said to Seer - this has (long since) become a rather tedious and silly discussion. Seer's "arguments" betray a complete lack of understanding of how languages work, and a myopic focus on some meaning he is adding (or excluding?) from the normal definitions of simple terms. It's inconsistent with his regular use of language (i.e., special pleading) and completely ignores simple realities. But he's blind to it, and I no longer see value in expending my time in the discussion. So I'll leave you two to slug it out.

Unsubscribing.

[JimL]

You misunderstood my post. I was specifically referring to the claim, "Naturally basically means, uncreated by man or god,- natural." While there is a variation on "natural" that is about "not created by man," there is no definition I find anywhere that says anything about gods. Now if you want to take Seer's stance that "man" actually means "intelligence," then your definition would hold. However, we've already established that Seer wants to create his own definitions, so I'm not sure what merit that has.

And I'll say as I said to Seer - this has (long since) become a rather tedious and silly discussion. Seer's "arguments" betray a complete lack of understanding of how languages work, and a myopic focus on some meaning he is adding (or excluding?) from the normal definitions of simple terms. It's inconsistent with his regular use of language (i.e., special pleading) and completely ignores simple realities. But he's blind to it, and I no longer see value in expending my time in the discussion. So I'll leave you two to slug it out.

Unsubscribing.

As far as I'm concerned we are close enough in our respective understanding that it isn't worth the debate, and seer will go on forever with it regardless, so I will take your sage advice and bow out as well.

[Tassman]

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

So you believe that everything is supernatural, or had supernatural origins. Prove it

[Tassman]

Really Carp, you can not tell us why those definitions are true, as opposed to merely common.

Sigh.

"Definition" simply means "a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary". Oxford.

It is not "truth", per se, merely how we use a word.

[seer]

And I'll say as I said to Seer - this has (long since) become a rather tedious and silly discussion. Seer's "arguments" betray a complete lack of understanding of how languages work, and a myopic focus on some meaning he is adding (or excluding?) from the normal definitions of simple terms. It's inconsistent with his regular use of language (i.e., special pleading) and completely ignores simple realities. But he's blind to it, and I no longer see value in expending my time in the discussion. So I'll leave you two to slug it out.

Unsubscribing.

Nonsense Carp, I'm not telling you or anyone what definitions to use or not. All I'm saying is that you don't know that these definitions are TRUE. Where rocks and trees have objective, knowable characteristics - we have no idea what supernatural or natural actually mean. Those definitions are NOT based on objective, knowable qualities they are made up out of whole cloth.

[seer]

Natural: existing in, or caused by, nature. Supernatural: not existing in, or caused by nature. The former (the natural) could possibly be caused by the latter, ie could be caused by the (supernatural), but it isn't itself supernatural, it would not itself be supernatural. If both existences were one and the same thing, then there would be no reason for the use of two distinct contradictory terms to define them. You could call the whole of existence natural, or you could call the whole of existence supernatural, but calling it supernatural in such a case really wouldn't make any sense logically speaking. seer obviously has a religious agenda so he wants to assert that everything is supernatural, which in itself makes no sense, but what he doesn't realize is that he is espousing in that argument, the notion of panthiesm.

No Jim, I'm not calling anything supernatural (I don't use the term), I'm saying nothing is natural. I will go by your definition: Natural: existing in, or caused by, nature. That means that the universe came about by and is maintained by the non-intelligent forces of nature. We do not KNOW that.

[JimL]

No Jim, I'm not calling anything supernatural (I don't use the term), I'm saying nothing is natural. I will go by your definition: Natural: existing in, or caused by, nature. That means that the universe came about by and is maintained by the non-intelligent forces of nature. We do not KNOW that.

So, you're not suggesting anything is supernatural, and you are saying that nothing is natural? Do you have other terms you'd like to replace them with then?
.

[seer]

So, you're not suggesting anything is supernatural, and you are saying that nothing is natural? Do you have other terms you'd like to replace them with then?
.

I said earlier that if something is created by intelligence it is not "natural." Natural would be that created by non-intelligent forces of nature. So if this universe was created by non-intelligent forces I would consider that natural. If created by intelligence then non-natural.