RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 31, 2020 at 10:17 pm
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2020 at 10:45 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
We have no choice but declare anything we see happening to be natural..whether we can explain it or not, if your definitions are accurate.
Because a things nature is what it is or does. Because supernatural is beyond whatever a thing is or does.
Let's return to your singing frog, with the additional comments by other members. Frogs don't sing, it's not in their nature. If we saw a frog singing, one of two things must then be true. We were wrong, and it is in a frogs nature to sing, or... the frog isn't singing, something else is singing, and it's in that things nature to sing in a way that makes it look like frogs are singing. In neither case does the frog or anything else possess supernatural abilities as you've defined the natural, or the supernatural. Nothing is doing anything beyond it's nature, because it's not possible for a thing that you're doing to be beyond what you do. It's not even a cogent statement.
Now...I know, I know...you only meant to employ this equivocation to evade criticism on your previous missteps, but you are going to be hung with it since you insisted on it - going so far as to claim that these were the only definitions for supernatural and natural that you even understand. Well, fine. If things are as you say they are...then you are wrong, and literally cannot be right. There is no supernatural, and nothing can be evidence for the supernatural.
Tough luck, I guess.
Because a things nature is what it is or does. Because supernatural is beyond whatever a thing is or does.
(May 24, 2020 at 8:33 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Everything has a nature. Its nature is what it is and does.
Let's return to your singing frog, with the additional comments by other members. Frogs don't sing, it's not in their nature. If we saw a frog singing, one of two things must then be true. We were wrong, and it is in a frogs nature to sing, or... the frog isn't singing, something else is singing, and it's in that things nature to sing in a way that makes it look like frogs are singing. In neither case does the frog or anything else possess supernatural abilities as you've defined the natural, or the supernatural. Nothing is doing anything beyond it's nature, because it's not possible for a thing that you're doing to be beyond what you do. It's not even a cogent statement.
Now...I know, I know...you only meant to employ this equivocation to evade criticism on your previous missteps, but you are going to be hung with it since you insisted on it - going so far as to claim that these were the only definitions for supernatural and natural that you even understand. Well, fine. If things are as you say they are...then you are wrong, and literally cannot be right. There is no supernatural, and nothing can be evidence for the supernatural.
Tough luck, I guess.
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!