Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[The Architect Of Fate]

[brewer]

A world without special supernatural friends, unthinkable for some.

[Belacqua]

I already told you that video says nothing about the supernatural.

If you can't support your assertions just say so.

Watch it again, and again, and again till it sinks in.

It doesn't address the supernatural at all. But the fact that you think it does helps me understand your position.

The lecturer is explaining certain things about the natural world. He is arguing that some other things about the natural world -- certain types of particles -- are not possible. Everything in this talk is about the natural world.

For people who assume a priori that the supernatural is impossible, it seems obvious that anything previously explained as supernatural will eventually be shown to be natural. So when the lecturer describes something natural, you think this proves the supernatural to be impossible. 

No one is arguing against the idea that many things previously attributed to the supernatural are currently explained as natural. That's a fact.

But the fact that these imagined (natural) particles are shown not to exist in no way rules out the existence of the supernatural. If it were true that mystics explained their visions by referring to as-yet undiscovered natural particles, then the lecturer's talk would show them to be wrong. But no mystic does that. So claiming that no such natural particles exist is irrelevant to them. It is attacking a view they never had. 

You of course don't want to type out coherent arguments to explain yourself, and that's fine. That's your right. It seems to me that others, and possibly you, are beginning with the idea that anything called supernatural is actually something natural which hasn't been discovered yet. I don't agree with this. To me, anything which is natural which hasn't been discovered yet has been natural all along. This is why earlier on I mentioned the word "occult," which just means "hidden." For thinkers in an earlier age, who were less clear on the natural/supernatural distinction, things that were not yet explained were just called "hidden." Whether they were natural or not would be determined once they were understood. 

The point is that if we discover various new things about the natural world, those are things about the natural world. It doesn't disprove the existence of the supernatural. 

And to be clear, I have not, here or anywhere, said that the supernatural exists. I have been arguing that the metaphysical commitments you have concerning the supernatural predetermine how you interpret empirical evidence, and determine whether you will entertain supernatural explanations or hold out for later, natural ones. And your arguments here, such as they are, work in favor of what I'm saying.

[The Grand Nudger]

The definition of supernatural that we're being asked to consider assumes, a priori, that the supernatural is impossible.

[possibletarian]

You of course don't want to type out coherent arguments to explain yourself, and that's fine. That's your right.

It seems, neither do you

The point is that if we discover various new things about the natural world, those are things about the natural world. It doesn't disprove the existence of the supernatural.

Well of course things we discover about the natural word are about the natural world, what we are concerned with is a coherent reason to jump to a non~natural world when we cannot find answers.

I have been arguing that the metaphysical commitments you have concerning the supernatural predetermine how you interpret empirical evidence, and determine whether you will entertain supernatural explanations

Perhaps give us a coherent reason to have metaphysical commitment to the non~natural ?

[The Architect Of Fate]

[polymath257]

And I explained twice.
Put the shovel down.

You have asserted, twice, that the supernatural is impossible.

You appear to support this with a video which doesn't address the issue at all.

If you are happy making unsupported assertions and avoiding the burden of proof, I'll stop asking.

OK, let me address this. At one point you asked if it is possible for something to act in a way that is against its 'nature'.

The problem is in how you define the 'nature' of a thing. You left that undefined and you have made a number of bold assertions, for example, that the nature of frogs is not to sing operas.

But, my understanding of the nature of a thing is the collection of ways it can act. So, if a frog is singing, it is in the nature of that frog to sing.

It is the way things act that constitutes the basic observations. And those observations are the raw material for the scientific method.

But, with this understanding, there is no way for something to act against its nature: if it is doing something, that activity is in its nature.

So, in that sense, a supernatural is impossible.

Now, if you disagree with my definition of 'natural', then please supply an alternative and we shall see if it is useful and what conclusions it leads to.

[Belacqua]

if it is doing something, that activity is in its nature.

This is the metaphysical question begging that everyone here is doing. You are sure, a priori, that it must be so.

In what way could your assertion here be falsified?

[The Grand Nudger]

See, aint gonna get it. Doesn't realize that he's criticizing himself. He asks us to consider a definition of natural and of supernatural that makes the supernatural a logical impossibility, and then inexplicably accuses others of assuming, a priori, that the supernatural is impossible.

[brewer]

Supernatural exists as a product of the human mind exclusively.

I've never seen evidence of existence, only anecdotes and arguments, which is what I'm seeing here.

Worst use of philosophy ever.