(November 20, 2016 at 11:59 pm)Primordial Bisque Wrote:

(November 20, 2016 at 10:33 pm)theologian Wrote: 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.

Or maybe the principle of sufficient reason is utter bunk.

If that is the case, then science which atheist loves will be an utter bunk too, because in every thought activity of man, we always appeal to principle of sufficient reason. If we are not appealing to principle of sufficient reason, then it is wrong to ask why and how it is raining, for it can just be answered that: well, it's just raining and nothing else.

(November 21, 2016 at 1:12 am)Whateverist Wrote: I hope we can move past the form of the argument.  I'm willing to grant you're competent to recognize a valid argument.  Whether or not I am as competent remains to be seen.  But frankly I'm more interested in having a conversation than a performance of set pieces.

Noted.

(November 21, 2016 at 1:12 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 20, 2016 at 11:51 pm)theologian Wrote: Well, I think, using our intuition, we can understand that from nothing, only nothing comes.

That there has ever been a universal state of nothing is far from established.  I sincerely doubt it.  I also doubt that either of us is or ever will be in any position to be sure of that.  Like you I assume that events follow upon sufficient cause.  I therefore assume that the universe is eternal but not in its current form of course.  The necessary and sufficient conditions therefore stretch back forever.  To my mind, that seems a less burdened assumption than that those prior conditions are to be explained by an alternative to the universe itself for which we have no evidence whatsoever.  Perhaps evidence for the 'supernatural' is in principle impossible since we are restricted to our side of the natural/super divide .. if we grant such a thing exists.  I specifically do not grant that.  In fact, I strongly doubt it.

Very good in seeing that a direct evidence for the supernatural is in principle impossible.

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

Now, our difference on our reasoning now lies whether which is the eternal, God or the universe?

I don't deny that the universe can be eternal. However, would you agree that the universe, being something that is limited by reason of its particular configuration and form, must be caused?

(November 21, 2016 at 1:12 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 20, 2016 at 11:51 pm)theologian Wrote: Thus, every effect must have a cause.

I'm willing to concede this much but I strongly doubt that the natural world is capable of receiving a cause from what is not natural.

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.

(November 21, 2016 at 1:12 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 20, 2016 at 11:51 pm)theologian Wrote: Now, nature is the essence of a thing. Since, it is defined, and every defined things must be defined, there may be a definer that is not defined.

Don't mistake definitions for causes.  We should hope to be working from common definitions.  Any of us is free to define words as we will, but only if we can agree on their use can we communicate.  Defined things are the stuff of language, nothing more or less.  They certainly do not require an undefined definer .. whatever that may be.  You seem to be making a great deal of the significance of language here.  Why?

I'm sorry for using the term definition. I should have used the term "determination". Hence, we can now both agree that whatever has been determined must have a caused, for the existence of everything that is determined is not self-explanatory, and so with the use of principle of sufficient reason, we can know that everything that is determined must have a caused. Hence, if every natural thing is determined, and every determined thing has a cause, then every natural thing must have a cause. But that will be a problem now for naturalist if we continue asking the question whether all things are natural or not, right?

(November 21, 2016 at 1:12 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 20, 2016 at 11:51 pm)theologian Wrote: That can only be the sufficient reason, right? So, if not, which is tantamount to affirming that all things are natural, then we are denying sufficient reason.

Not right.  First I have no idea what you mean by an undefined definer and, since definitions are aspects of language I have asked why are emphasizing this here.  Sufficient reason where physical things are concerned is about physics, not definitions.

Sorry again for the using the term definition in a loose way. I hope my clarification above would help.

(November 21, 2016 at 1:12 am)Whateverist Wrote: As I hope you recall I came into this discussion affirming that all things are natural.  That is hardly a problem from my point of view.  I certainly do not see how that is any impediment to there being a principle of sufficient cause.

Well, to facilitate discussion here, I would ask, do you agree that whatever is natural, has a cause, and whether the cause of the natural things are natural too or not?

(November 21, 2016 at 1:12 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 20, 2016 at 11:51 pm)theologian Wrote: Next, sufficient reason is not about comprehension. Principle of Sufficient Reason is just the truth that something can only come from something and not from nothing. Just as there is a crime scene, we know that there must be a reason for that, even though we don't comprehend or know the whole info regarding the crime scene.

There doesn't seem to be any need to comment on the very same points as you circle them yet again.

Noted. I'll just wait for what you can say on my other answers to you.

(November 21, 2016 at 1:12 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 20, 2016 at 11:51 pm)theologian Wrote: I fail to understand what you are pointing at when you say that I seem to beg question. What is that question? Remember that I don't claim that I know supernatural right away, but I knew it by demonstration.

I mean when you assert that intuition shows that there must have been a first cause therefore the supernatural, you are jumping to your conclusion without any support other than to say it seems obvious to you.  Well we don't see it the same way.

I'm sorry if I made it look like that knowing the existence of natural is by intuition. It can be, but it can also be demonstrated. Maybe I'll make a simpler demonstration below:

1. Every natural things are determined such as the nature of man, animal and plants are determined and so what is determined man can do is natural.

2. Whatever is determined must have a caused, for from nothing, only nothing comes.

3. By 1 and 2, every natural things has a caused.

4. By 3, if everything is natural, then everything has a cause.

5. If everything has a cause, then its cause may be either (a) natural or (b) not natural.

6. If the cause of natural things are natural, too, then its cause have a cause, and so on.

7. But, that can be, because that is just suspending explanation.

8. By 5, 6 & 7, then it must be (b) not natural.

9. Whatever is not natural and which can cause natural must be beyond natural.

10. By 8 & 9, supernatural must exist.

11. By 10, naturalist must be wrong.

Are we done or are you just busy? Oh well, let me know if you respond and I don't notice.

I'm not a naturalist but I think if people want to walk around naked that's their choice.

(November 21, 2016 at 8:50 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: I'm not a naturalist but I think if people want to walk around naked that's their choice.

Ok, but if you were a naturalist, would you be philosophically naked, or methodologically naked?

(November 21, 2016 at 9:04 pm)Primordial Bisque Wrote:

(November 21, 2016 at 8:50 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: I'm not a naturalist but I think if people want to walk around naked that's their choice.

Ok, but if you were a naturalist, would you be philosophically naked, or methodologically naked?

Most of the women in any room I enter are naked, philosophically.  

(November 20, 2016 at 5:21 am)Whateverist Wrote: 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. 

(November 20, 2016 at 10:33 pm)theologian Wrote: 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. 

(November 20, 2016 at 11:51 pm)theologian Wrote: 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? 

(November 20, 2016 at 11:51 pm)theologia Wrote: 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 ? 

(November 20, 2016 at 11:51 pm)theologian Wrote: Now, nature is the essence of a thing. 

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

(November 20, 2016 at 11:51 pm)theologia Wrote:  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. 

 

(November 21, 2016 at 1:45 am)theologian Wrote: 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 ? 

(November 21, 2016 at 1:45 am)theologian Wrote: 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 .