RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 30, 2020 at 5:32 am
(This post was last modified: May 30, 2020 at 6:02 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Is it possible to prove that there are no married bachelors? If so, then it should also be possible to prove that the supernatural is impossible, as you've defined it.
We could skip so much bs by simply suggesting that proving things isn't possible - allowing for every claim on the scale of epistemic nihilism and generously conceding that they all have merit without any discussion of their specific issues....but, a problem for all is a problem for none. If the criteria or process that you use cannot prove that anything is impossible, it's not surprising or informative when it fails to prove that one thing is impossible.
We could dive even further, beyond popper, to major revisions in his work, and say that we're being pancritical. Critical not just of logical positivism, but of logic itself. Perhaps logical inference is not capable of adequately commenting on logical possibility (the specific question here - though we could repeat this statement with any other sort of question we think logic can answer). This is the only state of affairs in which the definition you offered could not prove that the supernatural doesn't exist - but it has the misfortune of being labeled as explicit irrationalism.
Worth noting that a person doesn't have to go this route, at all, to believe in the supernatural. That's just a personal choice you've made. A person with a genuine belief in the supernatural can be satisfied (indeed, require) it's fundamental otherness to nature, concede that all knowable propositions can be knowably false, and simply believe that this knowable proposition isn't one of the false ones. None of these supernatural arguments of convenience, which reduce the term to meaninglessness and axiomatically guarantees it's impossibility , are required to hold the belief with intellectual rigor and honesty. Frankly, they do more harm than good to the dualist concept.
We could skip so much bs by simply suggesting that proving things isn't possible - allowing for every claim on the scale of epistemic nihilism and generously conceding that they all have merit without any discussion of their specific issues....but, a problem for all is a problem for none. If the criteria or process that you use cannot prove that anything is impossible, it's not surprising or informative when it fails to prove that one thing is impossible.
We could dive even further, beyond popper, to major revisions in his work, and say that we're being pancritical. Critical not just of logical positivism, but of logic itself. Perhaps logical inference is not capable of adequately commenting on logical possibility (the specific question here - though we could repeat this statement with any other sort of question we think logic can answer). This is the only state of affairs in which the definition you offered could not prove that the supernatural doesn't exist - but it has the misfortune of being labeled as explicit irrationalism.
Worth noting that a person doesn't have to go this route, at all, to believe in the supernatural. That's just a personal choice you've made. A person with a genuine belief in the supernatural can be satisfied (indeed, require) it's fundamental otherness to nature, concede that all knowable propositions can be knowably false, and simply believe that this knowable proposition isn't one of the false ones. None of these supernatural arguments of convenience, which reduce the term to meaninglessness and axiomatically guarantees it's impossibility , are required to hold the belief with intellectual rigor and honesty. Frankly, they do more harm than good to the dualist concept.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
