Nobody is affirming that nature is limited to our universe. All I am saying is that if nature was caused by something, this something had to be “non-natural”………..this is true by definition , if nature was caused by “more preexisting nature” then it wouldn’t be the cause of nature …………this is necessarily true regardless of how you want to define nature
OK, but I don't think that addresses my point, which was that everything that is causally connected, that is which can affect and be affected by other things, can be called nature. I don't know why you wrote those words.
As an analogy, if the first computer was caused by something this “something” by definition has to be a non-computer otherwise it would be the first computer. (the cause of the first computer by definition could have not been a preexisting computer) Is this so hard to understand? I need some honest feedback…. What am I doing wrong? why is it that nobody is understanding something that in my opinion is very simple?......... how should I Rephrase my argument so that other people can understand it?
No, that isn't hard to understand. The first anything can't be caused by another same thing. It's also a trivial point.
Do you understand what is being written to you? That doesn't seem to address it.
I've commented to you in the past that I have no idea what your reason for writing things you have written - what your larger point or goal was - and we're there again. What are you talking about and why?
The way I understand the term is that an Agnostic is someone who doesn’t know if God excist or not and is more less on the 50%s rage.
An agnostic is somebody who says he doesn't know regarding any question, not just about gods. A religious agnostic doesn't need to give a likelihoods for gods existing, and in fact, has no way to do that. I addressed that yesterday in
this post.
If you affirm that one possition is more likely than the other, I would call you an agnostic and you do have a burden proof………..you have to provide the reasons for why you think that one position is more likeñy than the other
Agree. Whatever you assert to be true, you have a burden of "proof" provided that you care if you're believed and you're dealing with somebody who can understand and accept a sound argument. Buit as you just saw if you looked at that link, I don't make such an assertion.
As I've said many times; induction is a characteristic of language and depends on proper definitions, axioms, categories, types, sets, taxonomies, and many other things related to the way we think and not reality. You can induce anything you want but that doesn't make it or any of the abstractions used to get there real.
I'd say that induction is what many animals including humans do automatically, but humans can articulate their inductions with language. My dogs know when it's time to feed them. They learned this by generalizing about prior experience.
Anyone can find observation and fact that fits their beliefs. It's what we do.
Not everybody. One can learn to do better.
What's difficult is finding anomalies and more difficult still is showing how they are relevant. The most difficult is devising experiment to prove anomalies are the reality and not what what we believe. This all runs counter to homo circularis rationatio (the species whom reason in circles).
Now you've lost me again. I am unable to paraphrase this because I don't understand what it is you are saying.
So you believe Planck was wrong or are you saying old men get set in their ways.
Planck was implying that, and he was probably correct to some significant extent. The young Einstein saw what nobody has seen before and what older scientists had difficulty accepting. Decades later, it was Einstein who had trouble with the implications of quantum theory.
Observation and experiment are key but this hardly means that thinking can't arrive at new knowledge.
Pure reason is logic and mathematic, and we call that knowledge, but knowledge about physical reality only comes from observing it (empiricism).
I believe proper observation shows all life is conscious and a defining characteristic of life is that it has free will.
OK. I don't see that, nor does anybody else to my knowledge.
Why don't you argue the point that we see only our beliefs and "empiricism" means nothing except in the abstract?
Are you asking why I don't argue for that or against it? I don't argue for it because it's not my position, and I don't argue against it because frankly, as is so often the case, I really don't know just what you mean. I don't know what "we see only our beliefs" means precisely. Are you referring to confirmation bias? And yes, empiricism is an abstraction, but the term is meaningful to me and most others familiar with it.
I don't know how reality works
Sure you do. That knowledge gets you through your day. You know how to take a shower, how to drive a car, and a lot more.
I am applying experiment and deductive logic intuitively to everything I see and know.
Don't forget induction. There's no deduction without prior induction based in the evidence of those tests.
I reason in circles too but knowing this helps me break out. Knowing this helps me see anomalies and, of course, support for many of my beliefs.
OK. I hope that's true, although I don't know exactly what it is you mean by anomalies in this context.
Even in medicine how many times does a patient see a doctor before getting to the root of the problem and/ or a solution?
That varies with the problem and the physicians involved.
I believe all belief is superstition
Then I don't know what you mean by that word.
And, of course, the comment creates a paradox. If your belief is right then it's also wrong, since it's a superstition.
No. No rules. Rather nature is logic and logic seems to us to follow rules. In a sense it does but they aren't "rules" per se but rather the nature of reality.
Another comment I don't understand you purpose for writing. If all you're saying is that the rules of nature are different from man-made rules, OK. I know that, so why did you want to tell me in this context?
If you literally look in someone's actual eyes you literally see what they are literally looking at. They are attending what you see in their eyes regardless of the perspective. It is what is registering on their brain. It is what they are thinking about.
And again. What are you trying to tell me with this? If this is it, then why did you bother? And if it's on the way toward making a greater point, what point is that? It seems like you post random and irrelevant thoughts to me that don't have value to either of us.
