Your position on naturalism

[Whateverist]

---

Thank you for what I take to be a genuinely held position on your part.  We've been suffering a barrage of Poes and trolls so not something to be taken for granted.  I'd love to explore this with you if you're game.  


I probably need you to unpack that for me.  Whether or not things have sufficient reasons, I would never assume we are equipped to understand them all.  So something which seemingly lacked a sufficient my well have one like that, which we just can't comprehend.



Why should that be?  Aren't you begging the question of whether any such thing as the supernatural exists, smuggling it in without arguing for it?



This seems to just repeat your last paragraph.

---

Yes. I'm game.

Great.  Lets go.

Let's see.

I used here a valid conditional syllogism:
[hide]
If A, then B.
But, not B.
Therefore not A.

So, the only remaining thing to check now is whether my premises are all true in order to show that my argument is not only valid, but only sound, and therefore, my conclusion must be necessarily be true.

And that is fantastically being asked by some of your inquires:

Your first query demands a request for me to explain more the Major Premise of my argument which has a firm of "if A, then B".

I hope we can move past the form of the argument.  I'm willing to grant you're competent to recognize a valid argument.  Whether or not I am as competent remains to be seen.  But frankly I'm more interested in having a conversation than a performance of set pieces.

Well, I think, using our intuition, we can understand that from nothing, only nothing comes.

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.

Thus, every effect must have a cause.

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.  

Now, nature is the essence of a thing. Since, it is defined, and every defined things must be defined, there may be a definer that is not defined.

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?

That can only be the sufficient reason, right? So, if not, which is tantamount to affirming that all things are natural, then we are denying sufficient reason.

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.  

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.

Next, sufficient reason is not about comprehension. Principle of Sufficient Reason is just the truth that something can only come from something and not from nothing. Just as there is a crime scene, we know that there must be a reason for that, even though we don't comprehend or know the whole info regarding the crime scene.

There doesn't seem to be any need to comment on the very same points as you circle them yet again.

I fail to understand what you are pointing at when you say that I seem to beg question. What is that question? Remember that I don't claim that I know supernatural right away, but I knew it by demonstration.

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.

[theologian]

If everything is natural, then we deny principle of sufficient reason, because every natural being being defined by its nature which in turn must be defined by what is not defined by nature, the beyond natural, the super-natural or supernatural. But, I think no one can deny sufficient reason coherently, because everything we observe, we know that it must have a sufficient reason. Therefore, not everything is natural and hence there exist at least one supernatural being.

Or maybe the principle of sufficient reason is utter bunk.

If that is the case, then science which atheist loves will be an utter bunk too, because in every thought activity of man, we always appeal to principle of sufficient reason. If we are not appealing to principle of sufficient reason, then it is wrong to ask why and how it is raining, for it can just be answered that: well, it's just raining and nothing else.

I hope we can move past the form of the argument.  I'm willing to grant you're competent to recognize a valid argument.  Whether or not I am as competent remains to be seen.  But frankly I'm more interested in having a conversation than a performance of set pieces.

Noted.

Well, I think, using our intuition, we can understand that from nothing, only nothing comes.

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".

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?

Thus, every effect must have a cause.

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.

Now, nature is the essence of a thing. Since, it is defined, and every defined things must be defined, there may be a definer that is not defined.

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?

That can only be the sufficient reason, right? So, if not, which is tantamount to affirming that all things are natural, then we are denying sufficient reason.

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?

Next, sufficient reason is not about comprehension. Principle of Sufficient Reason is just the truth that something can only come from something and not from nothing. Just as there is a crime scene, we know that there must be a reason for that, even though we don't comprehend or know the whole info regarding the crime scene.

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 fail to understand what you are pointing at when you say that I seem to beg question. What is that question? Remember that I don't claim that I know supernatural right away, but I knew it by demonstration.

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.

[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.

[Whateverist]

Are we done or are you just busy? Oh well, let me know if you respond and I don't notice.

[Doubting Thomas]

I'm not a naturalist but I think if people want to walk around naked that's their choice.

[Primordial Bisque]

I'm not a naturalist but I think if people want to walk around naked that's their choice.

Ok, but if you were a naturalist, would you be philosophically naked, or methodologically naked?

[Minimalist]

[Whateverist]

I'm not a naturalist but I think if people want to walk around naked that's their choice.

Ok, but if you were a naturalist, would you be philosophically naked, or methodologically naked?

Most of the women in any room I enter are naked, philosophically.  

[Excited Penguin]

The limitations of any particular form of consciousness color the world we perceive in ways consistent with our kind.  In no way does mind, divine or otherwise, create the world which we detect.  The world or "matter" is primary, perception or "mind" is secondary.

What do you mean, there? 

Emphasis added. 

If everything is natural, then we deny principle of sufficient reason, because every natural being being defined by its nature which in turn must be defined by what is not defined by nature, the beyond natural, the super-natural or supernatural. But, I think no one can deny sufficient reason coherently, because everything we observe, we know that it must have a sufficient reason. Therefore, not everything is natural and hence there exist at least one supernatural being.

That's an equivocation at best, pure nonsense at worse. Use the word natural to consistently mean the same thing , please. 

I used here a valid conditional syllogism:

If A, then B.
But, not B.
Therefore not A.

Could you explain where you used this? What is A? What is B? 

Well, I think, using our intuition, we can understand that from nothing, only nothing comes. 

I don't think you should you use your "intuition" when arguing for or against something. Therefore , no, you haven't explained anything. 

You'll have to define nothing for me before we can argue whether anything comes from it or not. 
[quote pid='1453420' dateline='1479700295']

Well, I think, using our intuition, we can understand that from nothing, only nothing comes. Thus, every effect must have a cause. 
[/quote]

Faulty premise. 

My intuition tells me you don't have the mental fortitude to make a coherent argument free of any logical fallacies . Therefore I'm right, you just lost the argument. 

See how that works ? 

Now, nature is the essence of a thing. 

Sure, OK. I'll hold you to that , though.

 Since, it is defined, and every defined things must be defined, there may be a definer that is not defined. 

Nope. This is an equivocation. 

Here, read up 

You just defined nature as the essence of a thing. You can't now sneak in some bullshit about Nature with an N by drawing from what is true for nature with an n . 

Let me exemplify this for you. I have a rich sense of humor. Therefore my comedy made me millions. Right ?  


Wrong. 

 

Nothing is just nothing, and it is a negation of "being".

I don't think that's good enough . I'll need you to define it exhaustively. What is being and what is negation , in this context ? 

Is nothing an absolute or relative state ? 

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.

 
Nope, I invalidated your argument by pointing out the whole thing was based on a conflation of the different meanings of the word nature . Go address that . Until then I think we're done here .

[Whateverist]

The limitations of any particular form of consciousness color the world we perceive in ways consistent with our kind.  In no way does mind, divine or otherwise, create the world which we detect.  The world or "matter" is primary, perception or "mind" is secondary.

What do you mean, there? 

Emphasis added. 

I had to go back to look at the paragraph from which that snippet was taken to remember what I did mean there.  Thanks for bringing it up because I think it is important.  In that paragraph from which you quoted I meant to contrast what I think is the correct analysis of the mind/matter conflict with the one which seems to impress theists which I was referring to in the second paragraph of my post from which you took that quote. This one:

---

In trying to understand what motivates the idea of the supernatural the best that I can do is to go back to a mind/matter dichotomy. It seems so silly to do this but I guess the idea of a divine supernatural is the idea that everything is ultimately but an idea in God's mind. Whatever order we think we find in the world is put there by a being fully capable of setting aside that order at any moment. So the idea of the supernatural is the idea of a supreme agency which sustains a reliable, natural world except when it over rules it instead.

---

The flawed mind/matter dilemma worries about how we from our point of view are supposed to differentiate between perception imparted by the world and that which is a product of the mind.  This view attributes to minds the capacity to create objects in a manner parallel to those encountered in the world.  Theists seem to find fuel for believing that a supernatural realm is a source for at least some of those mind created pseudo objects, especially that most revered of objects, God.  Believers attribute all objects to God's creations.  Those that we apprehend as being physical objects in the world are but a part of God's grand creation, an idea in God's mind.  In this resolution of the mind/matter dilemma primacy is given to mind.

But our modern way of looking at the relationship between minds and the world (matter) is very different.  We note that every creature has a perceptual array with which it finds its way in the world, toward food and mates but away from threats.  Those perceptual array's vary.  The dogs world is 'seen' through its nose, a bat's through its ears and much of ours world is colored by what our eyes see.  But any discrepancy between mind and matter is understood as arising from idiosyncrasies of the sensual medium.  In some cases perhaps we make mistaken assumptions about the world because of glitches in our perceptual/cognitive processing of the data we receive about the world.  But the only thing our minds are producing in these instances are mistakes.  Our mind's job is to create a mental analogue of the real world to help us to navigate our real physical bodies through the natural world.  No mind, not ours' and not God's, creates the physical world.  That is what I mean when I say matter is primary and mind is secondary.