Why should that be the case?
I wrote, "everything that is causally connected, that is which can affect and be affected by other things, can be called nature."
Why call an aspect of reality that can interact with other real things by a different name than nature? Why isn't reality outside of our universe not also nature? I would call it extra-universal nature whether that be a multiverse, a deity, or something else.
The original point that I made is that if you are a naturalist you only have 2 options
1 ether nature (originally used the word universe) has always existed
2 nature came from nothing
OK.
The third alternative
3 “nature came from something” is not an option because this “something” would have to be non-natural (supernatural) which is something that a naturalist should accept
Here's where we part ways. I'm calling that something be it a multiverse or a deity (extra-universal) nature, too.
The larger point is that option 1 and 2 are likely wrong and there are good arguments against these options…………..making 3 the most probable option
If you define nature as I have, either 1 or 2 must be correct. What are your good arguments against them?
From a previous post about the origin of the universe. These are all of the logical possibilities in my estimation. Everything listed, if it exists, is an aspect of nature, one being the universe and two being putative extra-universal sources of it. Why do you want to say otherwise?:
I. The universe has no cause
It has always existed
It came into existence uncaused
II. The universe has a prior cause
It is conscious (a deity)
It is an unconscious substance (multiverse, for example)
That was a response to "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"
OK. Definitions are an aspect of semantics, as it is about the meaning of words. Our discussion about the meaning of the word nature is also semantics:
Semantics - "the branch of
linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and
subbranches of semantics, including
formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form,
lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and
conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning."
I obviously don’t claim to know with 100% certainty that God exists…but I think the evidence supports theism over atheism. …. Given this most people would label me as a theist despite the fact that by your definition I would be an agnostic (because really don’t know)
It wasn't obvious to me that you aren't certain a god exists, but if that expresses your position, yes, by modern reckoning, you would be considered both a theist and an agnostic - an agnostic theist. You're a theist because you are a believer but agnostic because you don't claim that your god belief is correct. In my experience, most theists are gnostic theist. They claim to know that their god exists. In fact, many if not most Christians say that they have a personal relationship with their god. You're doing better than they are, but believing in something that you say you don't know exists is a logical error albeit a comforting one for many. Maybe a better word would be that you hope or suspect a god exists.
This, too, is semantics.
you can call me an agnostic if you want
I hope you understand now that that doesn't mean that I think you're not a theist.