RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 30, 2020 at 9:21 pm
(This post was last modified: May 30, 2020 at 9:32 pm by possibletarian.)
(May 30, 2020 at 9:16 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(May 30, 2020 at 8:33 pm)polymath257 Wrote: If a frog is singing, that is part of what it 'is or does' and therefore part of its nature, right?
If science told us in great detail and with great confidence that a frog can't sing Italian duets [i.e., that such singing is not a part of the frog's nature], and yet we saw it do so, then people who are open to the possibility of the supernatural would take this as evidence of the supernatural.
People who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would assume that science hadn't discovered something yet. That in fact it was part of the frog's nature. Even if a million years went by and no explanation was offered, people who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would continue to assume this.
For clarity: I am not saying that it's possible.
Then it wouldn't be the same frog that can't sing would it !, Because it's observable nature is different from a frog that can't sing. It seems you are wanting two definitions of observable behaviour to exist at the same time in the same frog.
'Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid'