(May 21, 2016 at 3:39 pm)robvalue Wrote: If someone believes that our reality was artificially created by magic, how is anything in it natural? What would that even mean?

Surely it would make more sense to say that the creator is natural, and the creation is unnatural.

What does the qualifier "artificially" mean? 

Anyway, I did not make up the words and their definitions.

(May 21, 2016 at 4:19 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 3:39 pm)robvalue Wrote: If someone believes that our reality was artificially created by magic, how is anything in it natural? What would that even mean?

Surely it would make more sense to say that the creator is natural, and the creation is unnatural.

What does the qualifier "artificially" mean? 

Anyway, I did not make up the words and their definitions.

Artificial as in something created something that is not occurring in nature. 
God/creator simply couldn't literally creature something natural it would have to come about in naturalistic means.

I don't know what a theist thinks natural means. What definition of natural includes things generated out of nothing by magic?

"Could not have come from natural causes" = "Argument from ignorance"

I think it's not reasonably possible to conclude that you have eliminated all natural causes, because that assumes we know about every natural cause. And how do you eliminate there being no efficient cause? [Efficient cause is the agency involved, as opposed to the material cause which is what it was fashioned from. Of course theists often conflate the two.]

Event e with unknown efficient cause c. It could be the case that c=no cause.

Known natural causes is the set N.

c is not a member of N.

Conclusion: c is a supernatural cause. This is doubly flawed, because we haven't eliminated the possibility of c being no efficient cause.

Science learns more stuff, and extends N to N+.

Now c is a member of N+.

Conclusion was wrong.

And what makes this "supernatural" cause any different? What separates the natural causes from supernatural?

(May 21, 2016 at 3:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: Supernatural is simply those things or events that do not have a natural cause.

Like what?!?

Magic. It's magic, isn't it. Let's at least be honest.

My personal definition for a supernatural agent is one that can act upon our reality (nature) but which our reality cannot act upon in return. It has a one-way effect. The term is relative. For example, if I create an artificial reality using a computer program, I am supernatural with respect to any manifestation of that reality that may occur.

My definition is subjective to particular realities, but not dependent on knowledge. I find the latter to be both redundant and dishonest.

Yes, magic.  Apparently some people never outgrow their need for magic.

(May 21, 2016 at 4:16 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 3:27 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: How would one go about establishing that the cause of something wasn't part of "the natural order?" Define "natural order."

Observation that the effect could not have been the result of naturalistic causes.

How would one go about ruling out all possible naturalistic causes for something? How would one account for natural causes that he just doesn't understand or know about? I'm also still waiting on a definition of "natural order."

(May 22, 2016 at 2:25 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't know what a theist thinks natural means. What definition of natural includes things generated out of nothing by magic?

"Could not have come from natural causes" = "Argument from ignorance"

I think it's not reasonably possible to conclude that you have eliminated all natural causes, because that assumes we know about every natural cause. And how do you eliminate there being no efficient cause? [Efficient cause is the agency involved, as opposed to the material cause which is what it was fashioned from. Of course theists often conflate the two.]

Event e with unknown efficient cause c. It could be the case that c=no cause.

Known natural causes is the set N.

c is not a member of N.

Conclusion: c is a supernatural cause. This is doubly flawed, because we haven't eliminated the possibility of c being no efficient cause.

Science learns more stuff, and extends N to N+.

Now c is a member of N+.

Conclusion was wrong.

And what makes this "supernatural" cause any different? What separates the natural causes from supernatural?

The difference between supernatural cause and a natural cause would be the properties of the efficient cause. Properties of a natural efficient cause include physical, governed by the laws of physics, repeatedly observed,  etc. Properties of a supernatural efficient cause would include non-physical, not bound by the laws of physics, powerful enough to act on the natural world. Added to that is the reasonable assumption that there is a purpose for the act. 

Can you give an example of something that has a material cause and not an efficient cause? Even better, an example that might otherwise be considered a miracle by someone at some time.

So, your position seems to be that what we call miracles have naturalistic explanations that we just don't understand yet?  

1) Isn't that an argument from ignorance? 
2) Under that reasoning, why don't we see more of these 'miracles' if it is just a matter of misunderstanding the cause? The rarity of a miracle actually supports the premise that miracles happen. 
3) If you zero in on a particular miracle example, there are often circumstances that make the 'heretofore unknown natural causes' just at the right moment and in the right context ridiculously unlikely. 
4) Whether a miracle happened or not is a probabilistic question. The more evidence and context clues the higher the probability.

(May 22, 2016 at 9:47 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 4:16 pm)SteveII Wrote: Observation that the effect could not have been the result of naturalistic causes.

How would one go about ruling out all possible naturalistic causes for something? How would one account for natural causes that he just doesn't understand or know about? I'm also still waiting on a definition of "natural order."

Feel free to jump in on my answer to Rob above. I think I covered your questions there.

(May 22, 2016 at 2:37 am)robvalue Wrote: Magic. It's magic, isn't it. Let's at least be honest.

My personal definition for a supernatural agent is one that can act upon our reality (nature) but which our reality cannot act upon in return. It has a one-way effect. The term is relative. For example, if I create an artificial reality using a computer program, I am supernatural with respect to any manifestation of that reality that may occur.

My definition is subjective to particular realities, but not dependent on knowledge. I find the latter to be both redundant and dishonest.

Magic is not the right word. It connotes either 1) a person harnessing or directing supernatural forces to achieve his/her goal or 2) illusions or tricks to make someone believe something that is not true.  I would not characterize a miracle that way.