(May 31, 2020 at 5:18 pm)polymath257 Wrote: What you seem to miss is that it follows from *your* definition of natural.
You *defined* the 'nature' of something to be 'what it is or does'. So, *whatever* it does is, by *your* definition, natural.
If you *don't* mean that as your definition, then be more clear about your definition.
I see what you mean.
You are saying that anything a frog does must be part of its nature. I see how you would say that this follows from my definition.
I think that we know a great deal about what a frog's nature is, and we are reasonable to rule out a lot. If we see something that contradicts everything we know about a frog's nature, then some people will see this as evidence of something that is not part of a frog's nature.
If you see something that contradicts what we thought of as a frog's nature, you will assume a priori that it is natural and that science hasn't yet discovered the explanation. In this way you rule out the supernatural and beg the question.
So yes, I might need to state my definition more carefully. But my meaning is clear.
