Your position on naturalism

[Excited Penguin]

So...  The Bible...  All metaphorical, then?

What makes you suggest that (from what I said)?

The fact that apparently you're a naturalist, and don't believe in miracles. God isn't natural. We don't find it anywhere in nature. Magic things described in the Bible aren't natural either. Science studies the natural world. Nothing magical about it. 

You can't be religious and a naturalist. That's a contradiction in terms, I'm afraid. God is defined as a supernatural being. Religion is belief in a supernatural power. If you don't believe in the supernatural, you should probably change your religious status to skeptic or atheist.

[Ignorant]

What makes you suggest that (from what I said)?

The fact that apparently you're a naturalist, and don't believe in miracles. [1] God isn't natural.  We don't find it anywhere in nature. [2] Magic things described in the Bible aren't natural either. Science studies the natural world. Nothing magical about it. [3]

You can't be religious and a naturalist. That's a contradiction in terms, I'm afraid. [4] God is defined as a supernatural being. [5] Religion is belief in a supernatural power. [6] If you don't believe in the supernatural, you should probably change your religious status to skeptic or atheist. [7]

1) Who said I don't believe in miracles? I explicitly provided the possibility of explanation for any given purported miracle:

"either it is 1) a previously unknown ability of that thing, or it is 2) the action of some other thing able to do that act within/through the original thing, or 3) some combination of the two."

If the primary agent of the 'miraculous' act is god, and the act is mediated through some other thing incapable of bringing that act about by its own nature... then it is 'miraculous'. Seeing as something as basic as faith is one of those sorts of divine actions, I'd expect there to be some distinctions down the line to categorize god's public wonders exclusively as miracles.

2) Reread these words: "Things only exist as something, not super-somethings." If there is a god, it exists as something. God is typically the word we use to describe that something. In more serious philosophical treatment of that "something", we use words like substance, essence, or... wait for it... NATURE! Not super-nature. In that sense, which is the sense from which "naturalism" reduces to a strictly 'material' understanding, god is natural... i.e. it has/is a nature, not a super-nature.

3) Combine 1 and 2 above. If there is a god, then god is something. If god is something, then god is/has a nature. If god is/has a nature, then god is natural. If god is natural, then his actions are natural. If god's nature has the capacity to freely cure leprosy with/through the will and speech of a man (if we could say that humanity does not have of itself the natural capacity to so cure leprosy), then, if god does just so, it does so naturally. If we were to witness this divine agency mediated through such a man's will and voice, we would call it a miracle. That does not exhaust the category of miracles, but I think that is the most interesting sense for the context of these forums. That doesn't mean that, therefore, all of the miracles attested in the bible are verified.

4) Which is why I said "a sort of philosophical naturalism", and went on to define what I meant by it. I don't ascribe the sort of philosophical naturalism which holds "nature" as equivalent to "material". Anything that exists, material or otherwise, exists as something. In older days people used to call that "something": "it's nature/essence/substance". Those terms aren't really helpful these days, as your response is demonstrating.

5) By who? What does a "supernatural" being even mean?

6) Seems like a poor definition. A bit reductive, confusing and inadequate to cover the entire religious experience. Divine power seems to work just fine. God's power. Whatever.

7) Catholic suits me just fine. Thanks though!

[robvalue]

Wow, this is like the twighlight zone

[Excited Penguin]

The fact that apparently you're a naturalist, and don't believe in miracles. [1] God isn't natural.  We don't find it anywhere in nature. [2] Magic things described in the Bible aren't natural either. Science studies the natural world. Nothing magical about it. [3]

You can't be religious and a naturalist. That's a contradiction in terms, I'm afraid. [4] God is defined as a supernatural being. [5] Religion is belief in a supernatural power. [6] If you don't believe in the supernatural, you should probably change your religious status to skeptic or atheist. [7]

1) Who said I don't believe in miracles? I explicitly provided the possibility of explanation for any given purported miracle:

"either it is 1) a previously unknown ability of that thing, or it is 2) the action of some other thing able to do that act within/through the original thing, or 3) some combination of the two."

If the primary agent of the 'miraculous' act is god, and the act is mediated through some other thing incapable of bringing that act about by its own nature... then it is 'miraculous'. Seeing as something as basic as faith is one of those sorts of divine actions, I'd expect there to be some distinctions down the line to categorize god's public wonders exclusively as miracles.

2) Reread these words: "Things only exist as something, not super-somethings." If there is a god, it exists as something. God is typically the word we use to describe that something. In more serious philosophical treatment of that "something", we use words like substance, essence, or... wait for it... NATURE! Not super-nature. In that sense, which is the sense from which "naturalism" reduces to a strictly 'material' understanding, god is natural... i.e. it has/is a nature, not a super-nature.

3) Combine 1 and 2 above. If there is a god, then god is something. If god is something, then god is/has a nature. If god is/has a nature, then god is natural. If god is natural, then his actions are natural. If god's nature has the capacity to freely cure leprosy with/through the will and speech of a man (if we could say that humanity does not have of itself the natural capacity to so cure leprosy), then, if god does just so, it does so naturally. If we were to witness this divine agency mediated through such a man's will and voice, we would call it a miracle. That does not exhaust the category of miracles, but I think that is the most interesting sense for the context of these forums. That doesn't mean that, therefore, all of the miracles attested in the bible are verified.

4) Which is why I said "a sort of philosophical naturalism", and went on to define what I meant by it. I don't ascribe the sort of philosophical naturalism which holds "nature" as equivalent to "material". Anything that exists, material or otherwise, exists as something. In older days people used to call that "something": "it's nature/essence/substance". Those terms aren't really helpful these days, as your response is demonstrating.

5) By who? What does a "supernatural" being even mean?

6) Seems like a poor definition. A bit reductive, confusing and inadequate to cover the entire religious experience. Divine power seems to work just fine. God's power. Whatever.

7) Catholic suits me just fine. Thanks though!

Wow, what a load of utter bullshit.

[Ignorant]

Fair enough.

[Excited Penguin]

The fact that apparently you're a naturalist, and don't believe in miracles. [1] God isn't natural.  We don't find it anywhere in nature. [2] Magic things described in the Bible aren't natural either. Science studies the natural world. Nothing magical about it. [3]

You can't be religious and a naturalist. That's a contradiction in terms, I'm afraid. [4] God is defined as a supernatural being. [5] Religion is belief in a supernatural power. [6] If you don't believe in the supernatural, you should probably change your religious status to skeptic or atheist. [7]

1) Who said I don't believe in miracles? 

You did. You claimed to be a naturalist. Words have meaning, you know, you can't make this shit up as you go along. Naturalism is in no sense compatible with a belief in miracles.  I could look up definitions from a dozen of the most respected and popular dictionaries, whichever criteria we might use for what might constitute a good guide to a better and proper use of language, whether it be the emergent popular usage of words or the recognition of their formal interpretation up to a certain  point in the not very distant past. We can do etymology on the spot,  as well, if you like. Certainly, none of us are linguists, but if you insist on ignoring or changing the meaning of words to suit your argument we do have the informational resources to go down that route. Are you sure that's something that interests you? I would wager not. At a core level you know precisely how weak your argument is that you have to dishonestly try and manipulate language to make it stick. 

I reject your weak positions and your deliberate ambiguity. It makes you a hypocrite and a dangerous one at that, in the sense that you are smuggling sympathy here by saying the right words and not really meaning them. You end up whoring yourself for a few social points. Good for you. All types and sorts are reducible to peer pressure in the end, albeit some more than others, it seems. 

I provided the possibility of explanation for any given purported miracle:

"either it is 1) a previously unknown ability of that thing, or it is 2) the action of some other thing able to do that act within/through the original thing, or 3) some combination of the two."

If the primary agent of the 'miraculous' act is god, and the act is mediated through some other thing incapable of bringing that act about by its own nature... then it is 'miraculous'. Seeing as something as basic as faith is one of those sorts of divine actions, I'd expect there to be some distinctions down the line to categorize god's public wonders exclusively as miracles. 

That's a definition of a miracle that excludes the possibility of God or anything else supernatural acting on it. It's one that conflates the miraculous with the mundane. It's an equivocation in progress. You can't define miracles as normal, physical, provable and falsifiable phenomena and then provide a supernatural cause for them, which God is. 

If it is not, then you don't really believe in the Christian God, you're not really a Catholic and you're not religious in any sense. 


A miraculous act is... miraculous? Good job making sense there. Tautological reasoning won't help your failed argument, which is one against language, in the end. 

I see you're smuggling divinity in there as well, without accounting for it. What the fuck is divinity, then, and how is it a physical, observable process? What scientific theory predicts it? Which discoveries have been made about it? Please show me. Otherwise it's the term we all know and love, it has to do with the 'supernatural', and it's a load of hogwash. 

2) Reread these words: "Things only exist as something, not super-somethings." If there is a god, it exists as something. God is typically the word we use to describe that something. In more serious philosophical treatment of that "something", we use words like substance, essence, or... wait for it... NATURE! Not super-nature. In that sense, which is the sense from which "naturalism" reduces to a strictly 'material' understanding, god is natural... i.e. it has/is a nature, not a super-nature.

Tautological bullshit again, disguised as new information. If God exists, it exists as something. God is defined as something. Useless repetition. Won't help your case. It will only waste our time. 

And more of the same, once again... Now you started alternatively defining 'something'. As if you think I have a weak grasp of language. Or maybe your reasoning power is just so inadequate that you can't move from one line of reasoning to the next without first repeating the first one over and over again until you feel like you understand what you yourself are talking about. Please stop being repetitive and tautological. I have no patience for this kind of nonsense. 

Here, let me rephrase that whole paragraph in three words, without leaving anything out:

God is natural. 

And here's my response to that:

No, it is not. Not the Christian God. Not any sort of God. Not unless we make up our own definitions of words, something I didn't agree to and I don't see any reason for doing other than to validate your prevarications in order to prop up this insidious brand of apologetics you're engaging in. 

You are, essentially, committing equivocation after equivocation, with no end in sight. All to sound less kooky to these nice atheist folks. 

3) Combine 1 and 2 above. If there is a god, then god is something. If god is something, then god is/has a nature. If god is/has a nature, then god is natural. If god is natural, then his actions are natural. If god's nature has the capacity to freely cure leprosy with/through the will and speech of a man (if we could say that humanity does not have of itself the natural capacity to so cure leprosy), then, if god does just so, it does so naturally. If we were to witness this divine agency mediated through such a man's will and voice, we would call it a miracle. That does not exhaust the category of miracles, but I think that is the most interesting sense for the context of these forums. That doesn't mean that, therefore, all of the miracles attested in the bible are verified.

Once again, I'll have to restate this needlessly verbose and repetitive block of text:
God is natural. Miracles are natural as well. 

No, it is not and no, they are not. Go read the definitions for the following terms: natural, God and miracles.

4) Which is why I said "a sort of philosophical naturalism", and went on to define what I meant by it. I don't ascribe the sort of philosophical naturalism which holds "nature" as equivalent to "material". Anything that exists, material or otherwise, exists as something. In older days people used to call that "something": "it's nature/essence/substance". Those terms aren't really helpful these days, as your response is demonstrating.

No, you didn't explain what you meant by it and to say you ascribe to a sort of it is to add credence to your poorly stated, meaningless position by having it take umbridge under the shadow of the terms 'philosophical naturalism'... Without first paying your due to it. 

That is the only sort there is I'm afraid. You're a supernaturalist who is confused about language. We won't change the clear meaning of this epistemological position in order to include you. Change your beliefs first. We won't change language for every poor schmuck trying to hold on to a mirage of reason in their wonderings through no man's land. 

5) By who? What does a "supernatural" being even mean?

By every fucking dictionary on earth. As for what it means, it's complete nonsense and it describes nothing. Simply put, that is. If you want to join the rational side don't do it only in name. God is as meaningless as the supernatural is. Accept that, and then you can join the ranks of reason. 

6) Seems like a poor definition. A bit reductive, confusing and inadequate to cover the entire religious experience. Divine power seems to work just fine. God's power. Whatever.

Your gripe is with the idea itself, which you hold, nonetheless, not with its definition, which is accurate. I was describing religion, not religious experience. Those two are not synonymous and I reject your use of synecdoche. Remain coherent and on topic, please. I don't know what the subsequent bullshit inserted in there is supposed to support or connect to, either. 

7) Catholic suits me just fine. Thanks though!

I very much agree. Stop claiming naturalism. That sort of bullshit will only fly with other hypocrites who have no qualms with sacrificing logic and language on the altar of superficial agreement.

[Ignorant]

You did. You claimed to be a naturalist. Words have meaning, you know, you can't make this shit up as you go along.

When you use the term "human nature", what do you mean by the word "nature"?

[Excited Penguin]

You did. You claimed to be a naturalist. Words have meaning, you know, you can't make this shit up as you go along.

When you use the term "human nature", what do you mean by the word "nature"?

Why don't you tell me what your fucking point is instead?

[Ignorant]

When you use the term "human nature", what do you mean by the word "nature"?

Why don't you tell me what your fucking point is instead?

A question is not a point. You told me that words have meaning which can't be made up as we go along. Clearly you object to my understanding of "nature", and accuse me of equivocation. So I want to know what you mean when you say the word "nature" in reference  to "human nature".

[Ignorant]

You can even use the dictionary on google: definition 2:

"2. the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.

synonyms: essence, inherent/basic/essential characteristics, inherent/basic/essential qualities, inherent/basic/essential attributes, inherent/basic/essential features, sum and substance, character, identity, complexion"