mnkbdky

Is this equivocating?

Here is the argument:

You need to know everything about the natural world to know [without doubt] if something is supernatural.

God is, by defintion, supernatural.

Therefore, you must know everything that is natural before you can know [without doubt] that God exists.

How is this argument using natural and supernatural. Is it guilty of equivocation?

This thread is not interested in whether or not the argument is true of false. The purpose of the thread is to test the validity of the argument, its structure.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

p.s. It is my opinion that it equivocates, I am trying to demonstrate this to a friend. I have tried to explain how, but, he/she is not getting the message either because I am explaining it poorly or because he/she doesn't understand. I am willing to bet it is the former (but perhaps this is false humility).

mnkbdky

I will give my opinion and then let people discuss it.


The defintion my friend uses for natural is this,


Natural
---- Present in or produced by nature
---- (OR) Present in or produced by the material world and its phenomena


Please notice that inside the definition there are two uses of the word natural, namely,

(N1) present in the material world, which means all material objects

and

(N2) produced by the material world, which means the actions and reactions of material objects (i.e., laws of nature, or the ways in which material object act and react).

The same applies to my friends definition of supernatural, which is,

Supernatural
---- Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
---- (OR) Of or relating to existence outside the the material world and its phenomena.


Notice that there are also two uses of the supernatural in the first definition. Also take notice that the word natural is used inside supernatural, and as we saw above the definition for natural also has two definitions. So supernatural has four meanings,

(S1) of existence outside that which is present in the material world, (i.e., immaterial objects)

(S2) of existence outside of that which is produced by the material world, (i.e., contrary to the laws of nature or miracles)

(S3) relating to existence outside that which is present in the material world

(S4) relating to existence outside of that which is produced by the material world,

Now, I am willing to grant that (S3) and (S4) are so similar to (S1) and (S2) that in essence there is no real difference. However, (1) refers to immaterial objects or things and (2) refers to laws of nature.

With these definitions there are, then, four arguments, namely,

A1: one needs to know all N1 before they can know any S1

A2: one needs to know all N2 before they can know any S1

A3: one needs to know all N1 before they can know any S2

A4: one needs to know all N2 before they can know any S2

The argument then proceeds to say that God is supernatural. My friend certainly does not mean, I hope, that God is S2. What would that mean anyway. He could say God may perform action which are S2, but God himself is not S2. At least not as God is understood by theists. Rather I think He means that God is S1.

It is at this point where the equivication, I believe, comes in.

The complete arguments could be

A1: one needs to know all that is present in the material world, which means all material objects, before they can know any of that which has existence outside that which is present in the material world, (i.e., immaterial objects).

God is that which has existence outside that which is present in the material world.

Therefore, one needs to know all that is present in the material world, before they can know God

A2: one needs to know all that is produced by the material world, which means the actions and reaction action of material objects (i.e., laws of nature, or the ways in which material object act and react). before they can know any any of that which has existence outside that which is present in the material world, (i.e., immaterial objects).

God is that which has existence outside that which is present in the material world.

Therefore, one needs to know all that is produce by the material world . . . before, they can know if God exists.

A3: one needs to know all that is present in the material world, which means all material objects before they can know any of that which is produced by the material world, (i.e., contrary to the laws of nature or miracles).

God is that which has existence outsid that which is present in the material world

Therefore, . . .

A4: one needs to know all that which is produced by the material world, which means the actions and reaction action of material objects (i.e., laws of nature, or the ways in which material object act and react). before they can know any of that which is produced by the material world, (i.e., contrary to the laws of nature or miracles)

God is that which has existence outside that which is present

Therefore . . .

The only time the argument does not equivocate is in A1. No theist that I know of claims that God is S2, which is need in order for A4 to work. A2 and A3 are just plain invalid.


Thanks,

--mnkbdky

mnkbdky

I realize this is not very exciting.

However, I simple Yeah or Nay will suffice.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

Pyrrho

No, from what you have said, I don't think we have sufficient reason to believe that your friend is equivocating. It would be better if your friend would present his or her argument for him- or herself, and explain what is meant.

If we consider, for example, the idea that something is a "miracle", or a violation of the laws of nature, we would need to know what the laws of nature are. If we were mistaken about the laws of nature, then this may cause us to make a mistake about whether a particular event is a violation of the laws of nature.

Likewise, before you can say that something is not natural (i.e., "supernatural"), you would need to have some idea of what it is to be natural. If you were wrong about what was natural, you are likely to make mistakes regarding what is not natural.

I think you would be better off examining the premises of the argument, and ask yourself, for example, whether or not you want to accept the claim that "God" is "supernatural". Or to put this differently, examine the definitions of all of the terms before you begin the argument. What, for another example, do you and your friend
mean by the term "God"?

mnkbdky

Now you seem to be confusing definitions of natural. What do you mean by natural in this quote. Please use the provided definitions N1 and N2.

Or maybe you mean N3, that which is not out of the ordinary; that which is common place.

If you mean N1 material objects and S1, one only needs to know what constitutes material and what constitutes immaterial objects.

If you mean N2 and S2, then with a broad enough defintions everything that occurs in the material world is according to the laws of nature.

Please people, if you are going to comment be specific with your definitions. This is the trouble my friend and I got into. I do not want to repeat it.

If you would like me to use something other than God or to define the Xian God I am happy to oblige. Now by God I mean, a personal being (i.e., a living entity that is capable of having relationships) who is of one immaterial substance and exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who is capable of doing anything that is logically possible, knows all that is logically possible. This being is the creator of heaven and earth of all contingent things that are seen and unseen (though not of that which necessarily exists, such as propositions or forms). He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

If you would like more, or for me to clarify, please feel free to ask.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

Pyrrho
Very good point!

xoc

The question is whether one needs to know all material objects(which should necessarily imply N2 since all actual material "objects" are only ever known through their relationships through the natural laws and cannot be seperated from them in fact) or merely the essence of what makes something material(namely matter). n1 is an interesting definition because it claims "all" material objects as a whole rather than "every" material object, which is the more common definition of natural(an object can be "natural" in itself rather than only be part of the greater "natural" whole of the material world- if we can define an object as "natural" without referring to everything else or knowing everything else that is natural, we make a distinction of kind that is particular rather than universal.) I think this argument about God if true would imply the counter argument: one must know N1 before one can know that any natural object. If not, we need only know the essence of what is "natural" to know the essence of what is supernatural:

A1: one needs to know all N1 before they can know any S1

(S1) of existence outside that which is present in the material world, (i.e., immaterial objects)

(N1) present in the material world, which means every and any material objects

I think this makes more sense because what is "natural" can be applied to all material objects distinctly or individually rather than as a whole, which is a more natural definition. We don't need to know all that is natural(materially and completely) but to know what best defines what is natural(having material essence) to distinguish natural from supernatural.

mnkbdky

Agreed.

Your comment, "I think this argument about God if true would imply the counter argument: one must know N1 before one can know that any natural object. If not, we need only know the essence of what is "natural" to know the essence of what is supernatural"

This is exactly what I have been arguing. The only thing we need to know is what immaterial is and what material is in order to know which is which.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

Wiploc

I don't know whether it is equivocating, but I know the argument is not valid.


How's this for an illustration of the same error:

1. You need to know everything about the supernatural world to know if something is natural.

2. Dogs are, by definition, natural.

3. Therefore, you must know everything that is supernatural before you can know whether dogs exist.

Or this, which isn't as rigorously fair, but which I think should get the point across:

1. You need to know everything about boats before you can tell whether you are in or out of a boat.

2. If you fell out of a boat, you are very wet.

3. Therefore, if you don't know everything about boats, you can't be sure you are wet.

crc

Pyrrho

No, you are the one who is confused. I have not presented any definition of the word "natural". To make my statements clearer to you, here they are in a somewhat altered form:

Likewise, before you can say that something is not "natural" (i.e., "supernatural") [regardless of what one means by the term "natural"], you would need to have some idea of what it is to be "natural" [that is, you need to know what is meant by the term "natural"]. If you were wrong about what was "natural", you are likely to make mistakes regarding what is not "natural".

If you have no idea what it is for something to be "natural", then you are in no position to judge what is not "natural".

Going back to the original argument that you presented as your friend's, it is not clear enough to judge it, and that is why I stated things like:

"No, from what you have said, I don't think we have sufficient reason to believe that your friend is equivocating. It would be better if your friend would present his or her argument for him- or herself, and explain what is meant."

For example, when you stated:

"You need to know everything about the natural world to know [without doubt] if something is supernatural."

What does this mean? Does it mean that one must be certain about what the precise limits are of those things that are considered to be "natural" in order to know what falls outside of what is "natural"? Or does it mean that one must know every fact about every "natural" thing?

Your presentation of the argument is too ambiguous for us to determine what your friend meant.

Clearly, one must know what it is to be "natural" before one can decide what is "natural" and what is not. If that is what your friend was affirming, then I think your friend is right. If, however, your friend meant that you must know every fact about every "natural" thing in order to know if something new is "natural" or not, then I think your friend is wrong.

Again, it would be better if you could persuade your friend to present his or her argument here for him- or herself.