SteveII Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:You left out: The NT books represent the claim fine, it just happens that the claim they represented wasn't true. Modern people are not that much better than the Ancients when it comes to believing that hearsay claims that have had plenty of opportunity to be corrupted by the 'Chinese whispers' effect are true. People don't have to by lying to be wrong.

And many people are happy to make shit up for the thrill of watching others believe it.

You are alleging that the writers of the 27 books of the NT believed something that was false (in spite of 3 of them being eyewitnesses) as well as that first generation that would have been contemporaries of Jesus. I am going out on a limb, but I think you don't have any evidence for that other than your belief that miracles cannot happen. So, we are back to miracles didn't happen because miracles can't happen. Circular.

Yes, people believe false things that they are willing to die for all the time. Fanatic belief has never been a defense against simply being wrong.

We don't know miracles didn't happen. What everybody has been trying to tell you is that even if they did, the evidence being presented for believing that they really happened is not just weak, but incredibly weak.

BTW, who are the three eyewitnesses and what, exactly, did they witness that has you so impressed?

SteveII Wrote:Tacitus: "Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on...ical_value

'Authentic' means the passage was probably actually written by Tacitus. The existence of early Christians is not in question, and Tacitus knowing what Christians thought happened to their founder is not surprising. If he came by the knowledge in some other way: Roman documents, for instance; he did not so indicate.

I'm in the camp that there was a Yeshua touted as the messiah who got executed by the Romans (though not the first).
If Tacitus wasn't just repeating hearsay, the passage supports that much, but that's a big if, which is one reason why I put the odds of Jesus having been a real person that the legend grew from at around 51%.

(May 31, 2016 at 11:13 am)robvalue Wrote: OK, thank you for your response

If everything was designed and created by an intelligence, are you saying the "nature" of things is simply what the designer decides was its nature? [1]

And are we, as humans, able to alter the "nature" of things? [2] In such a case, are we supernatural? Is the action supernatural? [3]

Is natural simply a subjective term? [4]

1) With the understanding that I am not asserting that a designer created anything at all: Yes, IF an intelligence created everything, that everything would include the "nature" of things as decided by that designer.

2) In one sense, yes. According to this simple (and metaphysically imprecise definition I offered), we can alter (and have altered) the "nature" of things. 

3) No. Instead, we are naturally altering the natures of other things. In other words, according to our own nature, we have the capacity to alter the natures of other things. 

E.g. We can make a glow-in-the-dark rabbit. Rabbits, by their own nature, are not able to glow in the dark. Human, by their own nature, are able to genetically modify other animals. Humans naturally genetically modify a rabbit. That rabbit's altered nature now has the ability to glow in the dark. It, therefore, naturally glows in the dark.

4) I don't understand the question

(May 31, 2016 at 12:15 pm)Ignorant Wrote: 3) No. Instead, we are naturally altering the natures of other things. In other words, according to our own nature, we have the capacity to alter the natures of other things. 

E.g. We can make a glow-in-the-dark rabbit. Rabbits, by their own nature, are not able to glow in the dark. Human, by their own nature, are able to genetically modify other animals. Humans naturally genetically modify a rabbit. That rabbit's altered nature now has the ability to glow in the dark. It, therefore, naturally glows in the dark.

I think you need to distinguish be essential and accidental properties. To say that something is natural seems equivalent to saying that it has an essential form. It seems to me that the glow-in-the-dark color of the rabbit's fur falls within the category of an accidental property, not an essential one.

Ignorant:

Thank you again

Okay, so... what would it mean for something to be "supernatural"?

What I meant by subjective is that a glow-in-the-dark rabbit is now natural because we screwed with it; it just has a new nature. But if we asked if it was natural for a rabbit to glow in the dark, we'd say no. So it depends on the frame of reference.

(May 31, 2016 at 12:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I think you need to distinguish be essential and accidental properties. [1] To say that something is natural seems equivalent to saying that it has an essential form. [2] It seems to me that the glow-in-the-dark color of the rabbit's fur falls within the category of an accidental property, not an essential one. [3]

1) My hope was to show the difference between natural and supernatural without this more detailed distinction (we are hardly dialoging with realists/aristotelians). It might be the case that I won't be able to, but you are right to point out this important concept

2) Yes, it is equivalent as you say.

3) Yes, according to the Thomist-Aristotelian analysis, the color of the rabbit's fur is an accidental property. That a rabbit's fur is glow-in-the-dark is accidental. That a rabbit can make glow-in-the-dark fur might be natural. The biological capacity to make the proteins necessary for glow-in-the-dark hair through its own [new] biological machinery, if it is given to the rabbit, might be an alteration of that particular rabbit's nature. I'm not sure Aristotle or Thomas thought of that possibility, and I've been wrong many more times than they were. Just my thoughts.

(May 31, 2016 at 1:46 pm)robvalue Wrote: Ignorant:

Thank you again

Okay, so... what would it mean for something to be "supernatural"? [1]

What I meant by subjective is that a glow-in-the-dark rabbit is now natural because we screwed with it; it just has a new nature. But if we asked if it was natural for a rabbit to glow in the dark, we'd say no. So it depends on the frame of reference. [2]

1) Things can only be said to be "supernatural" relative to a thing's nature. Slugs, by the powers inherent to their nature, cannot create universes () If a slug did create a universe without a change to its nature, then it can be said to have acted "supernaturally", it acted in a way that superseded its natural power.

Slugs cannot naturally sing opera for the sake of beauty. Humans can. Singing opera is supernatural to a slug, and natural to a human (i.e. relative to the nature it is referring to).

2) Exactly, see above. 

Is it natural for a rabbit to glow in the dark? No. 
Is it natural for a glow-in-the-dark rabbit to glow-in-the-dark? Yes.

3) Chad's comment should be noted. I am not using the term "nature" in a strict sense.

Okay! Well, how do we distinguish between what something can do according to its natural power, and what is supernatural? How can we be sure that a slug can't always create a universe, but it's just a rare occurrence?

It seems to be a possible fallacy here to say it's doing something it "can't do". If we observe it doing something, then it's done it. It's capable of it. So what's the difference between what something can naturally do, and what it can do? If there's no difference, then nothing supernatural can ever happen. If there's some difference, how do we objectively distinguish them?

Or maybe you're suggesting there must be some other agency involved to make up the difference?

But then... a rabbit can't naturally glow in the dark. But I screwed with it, and now it glows in the dark! What's the difference? How is this not now supernatural? If a slug created a universe one day, then clearly slugs can do that according to whatever nature they have at the time, even if it's being screwed with in order to make it happen.

Again, kudos for an actual discussion and not a "everyone knows what natural is" cop out that I normally get plastered on my face

(May 31, 2016 at 2:40 pm)robvalue Wrote: Okay! Well, how do we distinguish between what something can do according to its natural power, and what is supernatural? [1] How can we be sure that a slug can't always create a universe, but it's just a rare occurrence? [2]

It seems to be a possible fallacy here to say it's doing something it "can't do". [3] If we observe it doing something, then it's done it. It's capable of it. [4] So what's the difference between what something can naturally do, and what it can do? [5] If there's no difference, then nothing supernatural can ever happen. If there's some difference, how do we objectively distinguish them? [6]

Or maybe you're suggesting there must be some other agency involved to make up the difference? [7]

But then... a rabbit can't naturally glow in the dark. But I screwed with it, and now it glows in the dark! What's the difference? How is this not now supernatural? [8] If a slug created a universe one day, then clearly slugs can do that according to whatever nature they have at the time, even if it's being screwed with in order to make it happen. [9]

Again, kudos for an actual discussion and not a "everyone knows what natural is" cop out that I normally get plastered on my face [10] 

1) This is a good question, and the usual arguments against the supernatural (in the colloquial sense) apply here. In short, more advance and precise methods of investigating the natures of things (namely, the scientific method) have more clearly identified the natural boundaries of different things' abilities.

2) According to what we know about slugs, they don't create universes on their way to becoming fully slugs (I'd hope you wouldn't dispute that). Creating a universe is not something a slug does, as a slug, and in order to continue being a slug, or to grow into a fuller slug. If we ever did observe a slug creating a universe (I wouldn't hold your breath), see the 4 possibilities I mentioned in this post. In the meantime, I don't need to remain agnostic about a slug's universe creating powers. Slugs do everything slugs need to do to be slugs without creating a universe in the process.

3) Right, so let me clarify: "They can't by nature" create a universe. How do I know? Because they are slugs (i.e. they naturally act as slugs) without having to creating a universe. 

4) Exactly. The more we observe it and study it, the more we discover and learn about its nature. Thank you scientific method.

5) See #3. There is no difference between what it can naturally do and what it can do by nature. If the thing does something that was previously thought to be beyond its nature, scientific investigation must begin. If the act is within its natural powers, then it must be the case that the scientific method can discover this power.

6) A much more difficult question. The first tip is that we observe something happen in a way that nature does not typically bring it about. For example, a person who is blind from birth might begin to see perfectly all of a sudden. The natural human ability to self-repair certain parts of the body does not typically come about "all-of-a-sudden", much less does it come about at all regarding blindness. The relevant investigations may, or may not show the natural process of self-repair acting at a rate and capacity which is "beyond its nature". 

Does this mean they are "divine acts" or miracles? No. It just means that, in this instance, somehow, an action was brought about in a way which went beyond the natural abilities of the relevant entities. 

7) I am not suggesting this, but it does beg the question... how can a natural thing do something that is beyond its nature's ability? I do not propose an answer here, I am mere helping distinguish between natural and supernatural because I think the modern distinction (nature as the cosmos and super-nature as everything else) is a dead end.

8) Because the "nature" was altered (as was your original question about the subject). It is now making glow-in-the-dark fur naturally. If you were able to give rabbit this ability without any change or violence to its nature, then it might be said to be acting supernaturally.

9) That isn't so clear. In the rabbit example, you were asking if we could alter something's nature. I said it seemed so, and gave the glow-in-the-dark rabbit example. A slug who just happens to create a universe may have been given that power supernaturally, or its nature might have been altered. We can't tell merely by the observation. We need to investigate.

10) Well none of us has it all figured out. Most of us behave that way because we are trying to figure it out too. Always a pleasure!

I curious, why wouldn't "natural world" just be those things that consist of the stuff (physical matter) the universe is made out of and the interaction between that stuff according the the laws of physics? Supernatural things are anything that is not made from matter (existing apart from the universe) and supernatural causes are the causes on the natural world worked by such supernatural things.