Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Samhain · 07-23-2002, 12:49 PM

I think the atheist just defines 'God' as a god, and defines 'Nature' as nature.

Semantic wordplay does not make nature any more of a god.

Autonemesis · 07-23-2002, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Afghan:
Perhaps it would be better to say that a system of fundamental laws and an omnipotent person with specific desires would both determine the universe work in a set way.

Natural laws do not determine the outcome of events in the universe. They serve to help us understand, describe, and predict the outcome of events in the universe. Rather than dictating how the universe will operate, natural laws describe how it operates and provide a means to make predictions about how it operates.

That is all.

Afghan · 07-23-2002, 12:58 PM

Well okay then, let's look at the definitions some. The main idea toted is that a god is supernatural. I suppose my question, then, is what is the distinction between the natural and supernatural?

Goliath · 07-23-2002, 01:01 PM

Afghan,

The supernatural is that which is not a part of nature.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Samhain · 07-23-2002, 01:02 PM

There is no evidence for the supernatural. Everything that can be observed is natural.

Autonemesis · 07-23-2002, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Afghan:
I suppose my question, then, is what is the distinction between the natural and supernatural?

It is possible to formulate natural laws describing and predicting the behavior of natural phenomena.

It is not possible to do so for supernatural phenomena. Any hypothetical phenomenon that is unassailable using the scientific method cannot have laws formulated describing its behavior. Understanding is impossible, prediction is impossible. This is the definition of supernatural: those concepts that are unassailable by naturalistic investigatory methodologies. Specifically, the quality of unfalsifiability is a hallmark of alleged supernatural phenomena.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Afghan · 07-23-2002, 01:07 PM

By a part of nature, we mean what... observable? If a god could be observed (as a lot of theists have it) then he wouldn't be supernatural right? And it has already been said that the fundamental laws of nature describe nature rather than dictate it. Therefore, surely they do not exist within nature making them supernatural.

Afghan · 07-23-2002, 01:15 PM

Quote:

It is possible to formulate natural laws describing and predicting the behavior of natural phenomena.

This is a little more like what I was looking for. So here's my question on this one: surely the fundamental laws themselves are beyond such a method. We cannot formulate natural laws to predict what our natural laws will be. Dear Laws! I know I am just rehashing Aquinas here but doesn't that make the laws themselves, as I pointed out in my previous post, supernatural?

( Edited to include another square bracket to stop it looking silly. )

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Afghan ]</p>

Goliath · 07-23-2002, 01:16 PM

Natural laws are observable and therefore part of nature, whence not supernatural.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Jayhawker Soule · 07-23-2002, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Afghan:
<strong>I suppose my question, then, is what is the distinction between the natural and supernatural?</strong>

Nature is accessible to and explicable through the methods of scientific investigation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2002, 12:49 PM	#11
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	I think the atheist just defines 'God' as a god, and defines 'Nature' as nature. Semantic wordplay does not make nature any more of a god.

07-23-2002, 12:58 PM	#13
Afghan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Afghan is a non-local variable Posts: 761	Well okay then, let's look at the definitions some. The main idea toted is that a god is supernatural. I suppose my question, then, is what is the distinction between the natural and supernatural?

07-23-2002, 01:01 PM	#14
Goliath Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Fargo, ND, USA Posts: 1,849	Afghan, The supernatural is that which is not a part of nature. Sincerely, Goliath

07-23-2002, 01:02 PM	#15
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	There is no evidence for the supernatural. Everything that can be observed is natural.

07-23-2002, 01:07 PM	#17
Afghan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Afghan is a non-local variable Posts: 761	By a part of nature, we mean what... observable? If a god could be observed (as a lot of theists have it) then he wouldn't be supernatural right? And it has already been said that the fundamental laws of nature describe nature rather than dictate it. Therefore, surely they do not exist within nature making them supernatural.

07-23-2002, 01:16 PM	#19
Goliath Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Fargo, ND, USA Posts: 1,849	Natural laws are observable and therefore part of nature, whence not supernatural. Sincerely, Goliath

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.