Your position on naturalism

[Excited Penguin]

The limitations of any particular form of consciousness color the world we perceive in ways consistent with our kind.  In no way does mind, divine or otherwise, create the world which we detect.  The world or "matter" is primary, perception or "mind" is secondary.

What do you mean, there? 

Emphasis added. 

If everything is natural, then we deny principle of sufficient reason, because every natural being being defined by its nature which in turn must be defined by what is not defined by nature, the beyond natural, the super-natural or supernatural. But, I think no one can deny sufficient reason coherently, because everything we observe, we know that it must have a sufficient reason. Therefore, not everything is natural and hence there exist at least one supernatural being.

That's an equivocation at best, pure nonsense at worse. Use the word natural to consistently mean the same thing , please. 

I used here a valid conditional syllogism:

If A, then B.
But, not B.
Therefore not A.

Could you explain where you used this? What is A? What is B? 

Well, I think, using our intuition, we can understand that from nothing, only nothing comes. 

I don't think you should you use your "intuition" when arguing for or against something. Therefore , no, you haven't explained anything. 

You'll have to define nothing for me before we can argue whether anything comes from it or not. 
[quote pid='1453420' dateline='1479700295']

Well, I think, using our intuition, we can understand that from nothing, only nothing comes. Thus, every effect must have a cause. 
[/quote]

Faulty premise. 

My intuition tells me you don't have the mental fortitude to make a coherent argument free of any logical fallacies . Therefore I'm right, you just lost the argument. 

See how that works ? 

Now, nature is the essence of a thing. 

Sure, OK. I'll hold you to that , though.

 Since, it is defined, and every defined things must be defined, there may be a definer that is not defined. 

Nope. This is an equivocation. 

Here, read up 

You just defined nature as the essence of a thing. You can't now sneak in some bullshit about Nature with an N by drawing from what is true for nature with an n . 

Let me exemplify this for you. I have a rich sense of humor. Therefore my comedy made me millions. Right ?  


Wrong. 

 

Nothing is just nothing, and it is a negation of "being".

I don't think that's good enough . I'll need you to define it exhaustively. What is being and what is negation , in this context ? 

Is nothing an absolute or relative state ? 

Well, I think can look at it this way. We can draw triangles, but we are more than the triangles. So with natural things which can be effected by Supernatural. You may want to object that the triangle and us are both natural, but I can reply that both natural and supernatural are realities, as long as we can demonstrate the existence of supernatural which I have done with an argument.

 
Nope, I invalidated your argument by pointing out the whole thing was based on a conflation of the different meanings of the word nature . Go address that . Until then I think we're done here .