Your position on naturalism

[robvalue]

Haha, that's my question

I've never received a satisfactory answer as to how you could tell.

[Whateverist]

When I asked you what your point was what I meant was 'why are you asking that question?' . You still haven't answered that.

Yes I have. Here's the answer: Because I want to know how you would answer. Typically that is why people ask questions, even if people on these forums are usually trying to "trap" people with them.

Sensing your reluctance to answer, I provided the answer for you using google. The answer is in the dictionary.

You'll have to decide for yourself how much fun it is to interact with EP.  He doesn't like my statements either.  He likes to pick a sentence or two, ask what they mean without saying what about them he gets or doesn't get, and then after you've covered everything you think might be his issue he accuses you of deliberately ignoring his question.  Fortunately this site has an ignore function which works very well to shield you from the annoying and insincere.

[robvalue]

I don't think it's reasonable to insist someone believes in the supernatural when a coherent definition hasn't even been formulated.

Quite honestly, I'd never tell a theist what they have to believe. From my point of view it's all made up anyway, so I don't particular care what the details are. I'll debate them on their terms.

God is rarely defined coherently either. Ignorant's version makes more sense than most; even if it seems to me to be a set of abstract concepts.

[Whateverist]

I don't think it's reasonable to insist someone believes in the supernatural when a coherent definition hasn't even been formulated.

Quite honestly, I'd never tell a theist what they have to believe. From my point of view it's all made up anyway, so I don't particular care what the details are. I'll debate them on their terms.

God is rarely defined coherently either. Ignorant's version makes more sense than most; even if it seems to me to be a set of abstract concepts.

It is exactly the same behavior as a believer who comes here and tells us what our atheism means and what failings we must have as people on that account.

[Ignorant]

If there is a god => god has basic or inherent features. If god has basic or inherent features => god is/has a nature. If god is/has a nature => god is natural.

Thank you for your post, Ignorant.  If we were to discover a highly advanced being who was very powerful, then how could one differentiate it from being a god versus being a different, yet highly unique alien life-form?  Would it ultimately come down to faith?

Thanks for your question. If it is "a ... being", then it isn't god, regardless of its advanced quality. Most all things are like this:

Thing + "to be" verb + nature, for example:

You are (being) human. OR You are a human (being).

Your nature is human.

With god, the same formula applies:

God is (being) the-act-of-being

God's nature is the-act-of-being

God is the "to be" verb, so to speak.

God is "being", itself

So if you can establish that it is "a being", and not "being, itself", then it isn't god.

[Excited Penguin]

Well, that's dandy. Now make the connection with the topic at hand.

Seriously? 

If there is a god => god has basic or inherent features. If god has basic or inherent features => god is/has a nature. If god is/has a nature => god is natural. Do you need the definition of "natural" as well?

Also from google: "Natural, adj. 2. in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something."

Your "instinct" to classify god as "supernatural" no doubt comes from a long history of frustrating discussions with theists. My "version" of naturalism is no misrepresentation, even if it is not the way you are accustomed to the phrase. Catholics believe that god is one nature/substance/essence/ousia in three persons. Catholics believe that Jesus is one person with two natures/ousia. We've been using the word for a long time.

As for the topic, since my religious tradition has spoken about god with the word "nature" for almost 2000 years, I think that allows me some leeway in my ownership of the term. "Supernatural" is a late-comer that I don't find helpful.

That's where your equivocation lies. That's not the kind of natural implied in naturalism.

[Excited Penguin]

Well, that's dandy. Now make the connection with the topic at hand.

Seriously? 

If there is a god => god has basic or inherent features. If god has basic or inherent features => god is/has a nature. If god is/has a nature => god is natural. Do you need the definition of "natural" as well?

Also from google: "Natural, adj. 2. in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something."

Your "instinct" to classify god as "supernatural" no doubt comes from a long history of frustrating discussions with theists. My "version" of naturalism is no misrepresentation, even if it is not the way you are accustomed to the phrase. Catholics believe that god is one nature/substance/essence/ousia in three persons. Catholics believe that Jesus is one person with two natures/ousia. We've been using the word for a long time.

As for the topic, since my religious tradition has spoken about god with the word "nature" for almost 2000 years, I think that allows me some leeway in my ownership of the term. "Supernatural" is a late-comer that I don't find helpful.

Let us consult the Wikipedia article on naturalism 

 

In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."[1] Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.[2]
"Naturalism can intuitively be separated into an ontological and a methodological component."[3] "Ontological" refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Some philosophers equate naturalism with materialism. For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.[4]
Assuming naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, called methodological naturalism.[5] The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm.
With the exception of pantheists—who believe that Nature and God are one and the same thing—theists challenge the idea that nature contains all of reality. According to some theists, natural laws may be viewed as so-called secondary causes of god(s).
In the 20th century, Willard Van Orman Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers argued that the success of naturalism in science meant that scientific methods should also be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy are said to form a continuum, according to this view.

Read the above and you'll understand the problem I have with what you take naturalism to mean. 

Not that it matters much. You can commit as many equivocations as you like and these folks will applaud you for your effort to appear rational. 

I'm not much interested in that, however. Use language however you like. You are dishonest and this debate has long ran its course. I have presented all of my trouble with your mode of thought here in an earlier, longer post which you have ignored in almost its entirety at your own peril, because you keep committing the same errors pointed out in there. 

Your Catholic "naturalism" is a misnomer, plain and simple.

As for those of you that entertain this sort of manipulation of language, you do it at your own expenses. The moment you stop being intellectually honest is when your intellect bleeds into fallacious thinking.

[Pat Mustard]

Thank you for your post, Ignorant.  If we were to discover a highly advanced being who was very powerful, then how could one differentiate it from being a god versus being a different, yet highly unique alien life-form?  Would it ultimately come down to faith?

Thanks for your question. If it is "a ... being", then it isn't god, regardless of its advanced quality. Most all things are like this:

Thing + "to be" verb + nature, for example:

You are (being) human. OR You are a human (being).

Your nature is human.

With god, the same formula applies:

God is (being) the-act-of-being

God's nature is the-act-of-being

God is the "to be" verb, so to speak.

God is "being", itself

So if you can establish that it is "a being", and not "being, itself", then it isn't god.

That's not an answer, that's a deepity.

[bennyboy]

Thank you for your post, Ignorant.  If we were to discover a highly advanced being who was very powerful, then how could one differentiate it from being a god versus being a different, yet highly unique alien life-form?  Would it ultimately come down to faith?

Thanks for your question. If it is "a ... being", then it isn't god, regardless of its advanced quality. Most all things are like this:

Thing + "to be" verb + nature, for example:

You are (being) human. OR You are a human (being).

Your nature is human.

With god, the same formula applies:

God is (being) the-act-of-being

God's nature is the-act-of-being

God is the "to be" verb, so to speak.

God is "being", itself

So if you can establish that it is "a being", and not "being, itself", then it isn't god.

If God isn't a being, then who's Jesus?  Is Jesus "being, itself?"

[Excited Penguin]

I've used too much invective language in this thread and for that, I apologize. I have edited my two most recent posts to reflect that. Now I regret to inform you I am withdrawing from these discussions - it seems I have to, it's becoming too heated for me. 

Nevertheless, thank you for conversing with me, Ignorant.  Have a nice day.