Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[Belacqua]

It doesn't matter, you can't claim to believe the supernatural is impossible and claim to believe there is evidence for the supernatural.

I didn't say the supernatural is impossible. I said I didn't believe in it.

Keep in mind the doxa on this forum: a lack of belief is not an assertion of non-existence. 

If you were to read what I said, you'd see that what I call evidence is data that is interpreted in a certain way. Interpreted in one way, by people who are open to it, all kinds of things are evidence for the supernatural. I haven't discussed how it is that *I* interpret the data.

---

It's dishonest, he is trying to play both sides of the fence and he ends up stating things that are contradictory.

I'm sorry that you haven't read my posts closely enough to see that what you're claiming here is false.

---

And you have never described how to find the 'nature' of a thing.

The nature of a thing is what it is and does. We learn this through scientific study.

So, if a frog is singing, that is part of its nature: it is what it is and does.

Your entire argument, as far as I can see, is asserting this over and over.

---

Do you think of the supernatural as a force of some kind? Or a realm? Are there things that exist as supernatural entities? If the supernatural exists, it must have some ontological presence or form, yeah? What is the nature of the supernatural?

If you refer back to the definition I've given several times, you'll see that I define the supernatural as when something acts over and above its nature. So I haven't said anything about some supernatural thingy with form and ontology. I've only talked about events. 

To explain how such events occur, some people might posit a force or realm or something. This thread hasn't addressed that part yet. I haven't thought about it much. If there were some kind of separate realm from what we know, I expect that what happens there happens in accord with its nature. So it would be natural. But I haven't brought up separate realms and I have no idea how they would work.

It is helpful for me to see that this is probably what people have in mind: not just inexplicable events but some kind of unknown realm. 

Additionally, what positive characteristics or attributes disqualify the supernatural from the category of natural? 

If the nature of a thing rules out certain actions, but we see those actions happen anyway, then we distinguish that it's not natural but supernatural. If it turns out, as poly asserts, that anything an object does is actually in that object's nature, then it's not a supernatural event. 

Think of something with a nature. People, for example, are made of people stuff, do people things, and live in people ways. That's their nature. If we see someone do something that people can't do, then it's not natural. 

And, if the supernatural can interact with the natural world, and affect it in a discernible way, shouldn’t we be able to detect it somehow?

Yes, of course. If a person does something which natural people can't do, it might well affect the natural world. 

So let's assume it's against the nature of a person to fly to Jupiter and push it out of orbit. (I hope we can all agree that this is not a part of a person's nature.) If a person did this, it would affect the natural world. 

I am not saying this is possible.

[polymath257]

And you have never described how to find the 'nature' of a thing.

The nature of a thing is what it is and does. We learn this through scientific study.

So, if a frog is singing, that is part of its nature: it is what it is and does.

Your entire argument, as far as I can see, is asserting this over and over.

---

I'm using *your* definition. If a frog is singing, that is part of what it 'is or does' and therefore part of its nature, right?

So, we look at the frog. it is singing. That means it is a type of frog that can sing. And, by your definition, it is then part of its nature.

Your very definition shows that things cannot do what is not part of their nature. Why not? because if it is doing it, it is part of what it does, and that means it is part of its nature.

Where am I misapplying your definition?

[Belacqua]

If a frog is singing, that is part of what it 'is or does' and therefore part of its nature, right?

If science told us in great detail and with great confidence that a frog can't sing Italian duets [i.e., that such singing is not a part of the frog's nature], and yet we saw it do so, then people who are open to the possibility of the supernatural would take this as evidence of the supernatural.

People who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would assume that science hadn't discovered something yet. That in fact it was part of the frog's nature. Even if a million years went by and no explanation was offered, people who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would continue to assume this. 

For clarity: I am not saying that it's possible.

[possibletarian]

If a frog is singing, that is part of what it 'is or does' and therefore part of its nature, right?

If science told us in great detail and with great confidence that a frog can't sing Italian duets [i.e., that such singing is not a part of the frog's nature], and yet we saw it do so, then people who are open to the possibility of the supernatural would take this as evidence of the supernatural.

People who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would assume that science hadn't discovered something yet. That in fact it was part of the frog's nature. Even if a million years went by and no explanation was offered, people who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would continue to assume this. 

For clarity: I am not saying that it's possible.

Then it wouldn't be the same frog that can't sing would it !, Because it's observable nature is different from a frog that can't sing. It seems you are wanting two definitions of observable behaviour to exist at the same time in the same frog.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not at anyone's end but your own. The definition you gave is flatly incoherent. It defines the supernatural as a non quantity. Your definition of the supernatural, all by itself, reduces the supernatural to a logical impossibility. Good job.

I think it's super hilarious that you've spent so much time here pretending not to be an apologist, denying your own beliefs, just to fuck the pooch like this. Way to waste you own time and credibility man.

[Succubus#2]

If science told us in great detail and with great confidence that a frog can't sing Italian duets

No. Not great confidence absolute certainty, a four year old knows this.

---

DAMN AND A THOUSAND FUCKs TO THIS FORUM QUOTE FUNCTION!

I've just lost three posts.

---

This thread hasn't addressed that part yet.

LIAR!

[Succubus#2]

...In a sense, this is not supernatural, according to the definition I'm using...

According to the definition you're using? Of course; it will be your particular definition du jour. Your definitions are remarkably fickle things.

But anyway, there is no such thing as the supernatural and we know this for an absolute certainty because there is no possible mechanism whereby in can work.

Speculations to the contrary are not the provenance of bold visionaries, they are the dreams of crackpots

Sean Carroll.

---

This is from last September, you ignored it then and no doubt you will ignore it again now.

The Fundamental Nature of Reality.





Minute 45 - 49.30 is the uppercut that floors the mystics.

Only it won't.

Here's something else for you to ignore:

The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood.

---

What the fuck is it with this quote function???

[arewethereyet]

If a frog is singing, that is part of what it 'is or does' and therefore part of its nature, right?

If science told us in great detail and with great confidence that a frog can't sing Italian duets [i.e., that such singing is not a part of the frog's nature], and yet we saw it do so, then people who are open to the possibility of the supernatural would take this as evidence of the supernatural.

People who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would assume that science hadn't discovered something yet. That in fact it was part of the frog's nature. Even if a million years went by and no explanation was offered, people who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would continue to assume this. 

For clarity: I am not saying that it's possible.

Wouldn't it take two frogs to sing a duet?

[Mr.wizard]

the supernatural and it being possible.

I don't believe it's possible. 

I also don't believe it's possible to prove it's not possible.

Bel's quote "I didn't say the supernatural was impossible".

I clearly said you claimed to BELIEVE the supernatural was impossible, and you also said you BELIEVED there was evidence for the supernatural, those two statements are in conflict. I have called you dishonest before and I am doing it again, stop moving the goal posts, state your position clearly and defend it.

[Belacqua]

I don't believe it's possible. 

I also don't believe it's possible to prove it's not possible.

Bel's quote "I didn't say the supernatural was impossible".

Really? What the hell am I looking at? And I clearly said you claimed to BELIEVE the supernatural was impossible, and you also said you BELIEVED there was evidence for the supernatural, those two statements are in conflict. I have called you dishonest before and I am doing it again, stop moving the goal posts, state your position clearly and defend it.

I lack belief in the supernatural.