Your position on naturalism

[Whateverist]

---

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".

But is nothing something which ever has or ever could exist?  This is the main point.

Secondarily I would point out that our thoughts, perceptions, dreams, prejudices and so forth are also not nothing.  The gods, should they exist at all, also are not nothing.  So neither of us thinks the universe came from nothing.  You think it came from gods.  I think it came from its own prior states.

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?

If you mean it must have been caused, then sure.  Its emergence from its prior states was not capricious.  There are patterns of causation which can be tracked from one state of the universe to the next.  Again, it may not be possible for we human being or any other being whatsoever to understand all the causal relationships but I too believe they are there.

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.

More to the point we are natural conscious beings and triangles are natural unconscious things which it is possible for us to draw at least in some approximate way.  "We are more than triangles"?  We are no more natural than they but we are doers and triangles are things devoid of all intentionality or causal powers it would seem.  I don't follow your parallel however.  In what manner are we but objects in the hands of supernatural subjects and why in the world would you think such a thing.  Can you see how outlandish this appears to someone living entirely in the natural world?

Again you seek to use your conclusion that "both natural and supernatural are realities" without arguing why this must be.  You've said it can be seen as being like your analogy to drawing triangles.  But there is a world of difference between "can be seen as being like" and "must be".

---

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?

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.

---

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?

I could concede this if I were capable of attaching any meaning whatsoever to the supernatural alternative.  But frankly no, it seems to me that every thing is determined by causes which are entirely natural.  To think otherwise is, for me, inconceivable.

---

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.

---

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.

Sorry but no that doesn't help.  My preference remains to have a conversation and not study preprepared set pieces.