Science can mislead just as religion can; both can lead to falsehoods and thus both can mislead.

[Realist]

True; however, this does not in any way prove that science is invalid, or that faith is valid.

I never claimed science is invalid, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it can be wrong at times and thus mislead.

Classical and quantum physics don't conflict, they merely have different purviews. Classical physics deals with systems which are made up of so many tiny quantum systems that dealing with those systems in terms of quantae would be impractical. As such classical physics accepts a loss of precision for a gain of practicality.

Purviews? If by that you mean just an expansion of the views of classical physics, I agree to an extent; although an expansion of views can also involve contradicting older views or be enough to show a totally different and new picture than what was once thought.

This is a misrepresentation of the observer effect. The observer effect is not so much that observation affects the system, but that the tools by which we observe interact with the system, producing an effect.

For example, if we observe a system visually, we do so by bouncing photons off of it. Comparatively gigantic things like atoms aren't affected significantly by the photon hitting it, but if we are observing a photon, bouncing a photon off of it is like seeing if a car is there by crashing another car into it. Of course this has an effect on the car (or photon).

I've heard interpretations involving just consciousness being involved irregardless of the tools we use for observing the effect particles. I have a book that goes into this in some detail entitled, Quantum Enigma: Physics encounters consciousness by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (both physicist) and it describes as just consciousness playing the role in the observer effect.

Probability is a logical basis. Faith is not a logical basis.

I only mentioned *naturalism* as not having a logical basis, not science. Naturalism is a view that makes an absolute claim. Absolute claims involve things that are universally valid, which is different than what probability is which only speaks in terms of likelihood. So although, in large part, science works in terms of probability, but naturalism is one of those views accepted by scientists that goes beyond probability. There's also no rational or logical basis for any absolute statement. We agree that there is a logical basis for probable statements at least.

Your argument seems to be, "science doesn't generally make absolute statements, faith does, so faith wins!"

I never mentioned the word faith in any of my statements for this thread, except now since I'm responding. Nor have I ever claimed faith wins. As I mentioned earlier, there is NO logical basis, justification, or proof for anything absolute. Therefore, I don't know if faith and naturalism are accurate. They both which make absolute claims, and there's no logical proof for that, and therefore they're unreasonable.

 

[Imagist]

I never claimed science is invalid, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it can be wrong at times and thus mislead.

So? It seems that your intent is to discredit science, which your statement does not succeed in doing.

Purviews? If by that you mean just an expansion of the views of classical physics, I agree to an extent; although an expansion of views can also involve contradicting older views or be enough to show a totally different and new picture than what was once thought.

No, by purviews I mean purviews. In other words, they are talking about different areas of study. They don't contradict; they are studying interactions on completely different scales.

I've heard interpretations involving just consciousness being involved irregardless of the tools we use for observing the effect particles. I have a book that goes into this in some detail entitled, Quantum Enigma: Physics encounters consciousness by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (both physicist) and it describes as just consciousness playing the role in the observer effect.

I would have to read that book to evaluate their claims, but I have seen no other scientists make this claim.

Naturalism is a view that makes an absolute claim. Absolute claims involve things that are universally valid, which different than what probability is which only speaks in terms of likelihood. So although, in large part, science works in terms of probability, but naturalism is one of those views accepted by scientists that goes beyond probability. There's also know rational or logical basis for any absolute statement.

"Absolute claims" are a matter of extremity. If something is 99.9999% sure, then I have no problem saying that it is absolutely true.

I never mentioned the word faith in any of my statements for this thread, except now since I'm responding. Nor have I ever claimed faith wins.

True, but it's ridiculous to claim that you are making your argument in a void. What relevance does claiming that there is no logical justification for an absolute statement have without a comparison to faith?

As I mentioned earlier, there is NO logical basis, justification, or proof for anything absolute. Therefore, I don't know if faith and naturalism, both which make absolute claims, are logical or accurate, and therefore they're unreasonable.

Shouldn't you say, "As I probably mentioned earlier, there probably is no logical basis, justification, or proof for most things absolute. Therefore, I probably don't know if faith and naturalism, both which probably make absolute claims, are logical or accurate, and probably therefore they're probably unreasonable."?

My point is, when we believe something with a high level of certainty, there's nothing wrong with stating it as an absolute. You even do it yourself.

 

[Realist]

So? It seems that your intent is to discredit science, which your statement does not succeed in doing.

My agenda is not to discredit science; it's only to put it in proper perspective so we don't have people thinking that science is the cure all remedy for safeguarding against ignorance. It's not, neither is religion of course, both can lead to ignorance. By definition, what you don't know is ignorance, and since science doesn't know everything it is therefore ignorant on those things. That's one way it can lead to ignorance at least. And who's to say that if science eventually discovers new things that those new things won't change and/or contradict our current conceptions of reality?

"Absolute claims" are a matter of extremity. If something is 99.9999% sure, then I have no problem saying that it is absolutely true.

If you're 99.9% sure about something, then I wouldn't call it a likelihood that such and such is the case, I'd say it is the case.

True, but it's ridiculous to claim that you are making your argument in a void. What relevance does claiming that there is no logical justification for an absolute statement have without a comparison to faith?

All I'll say is that I love science, I truly do ; )

Shouldn't you say, "As I probably mentioned earlier, there probably is no logical basis, justification, or proof for most things absolute. Therefore, I probably don't know if faith and naturalism, both which probably make absolute claims, are logical or accurate, and probably therefore they're probably unreasonable."?

My point is, when we believe something with a high level of certainty, there's nothing wrong with stating it as an absolute. You even do it yourself.

By definition absolute statements and probable statements are not the same. Out of convenience some may want to mix the two, but for the sake of calling it like it is, I won't do that. Probability itself is not even a perfect tool of measurement. There's always a give or take margin of error, so it will never measure anything of 100%.

 

[Magic Man]

I actually have another quote in place of the science being able to mislead quote. Simply put if anything can be wrong then it can mislead, that is if people don't notice the wrong and accept it. That is the case with science at times. Not only can you be misled by having false knowledge but you can also be misled by having a lack of knowledge. The things we don't know, when we come to know them may completely change the picture of how we thought the Universe was. For example, there are some conflicting and totally new views between classical physics and quantum physics. The "observer effect" in Quantum Physics imples that some subatomic particles don't exist until they are observed. Worse yet, some of them pop in out of existence or even worse, a subatomic particle can be in two different places at once. If all these findings maintain their accuracy, then this could mean that the physical universe is a direct result of consciousness (mind over matter???) and there seems to be some dice playing going on with the Universe, which is contrary to what Einstein thought. For all I know maybe some superconscious source like God or the collective conscious of all of us observing the Universe causes it to exist???

Thank you for responding, although this didn't really clarify too much for me. Here's the deal. Anything can mislead, even facts. However, it's a lot easier to be misled when you're believing something simply on faith than when you're believing it based on scientific studies. Science consantly attempts to correct itself to make sure it's not misleading. Religions like Christianity don't do that.

The bottom line is that science misleads a whole lot less than religions like Christianity because it keeps itself up to date.

For the second or last quote, by it's very nature science does not make "absolute" statements. Saying that *everything* is natural is an absolute statement. Science deals in terms of probability, not absoluteness. Besides that I'd question making an absolute statement, w/out first having absolute knowledge, i.e. omniscience of the Universe which science clearly falls short at. This is not to disprove naturalism, but only to show that it is assumptious, unproven, and thus not yet having any logical basis to it.

This isn't about absolute statements, though. This is about defining words. The point of saying that everything is natural is that everything is part of nature. For instance, ghosts are part of nature, if they exist, and are therefore not supernatural. So, it's far from unreasonable to say that because everything we know of is part of nature (the universe), it is natural.

 

[Imagist]

My agenda is not to discredit science; it's only to put it in proper perspective so we don't have people thinking that science is the cure all remedy for safeguarding against ignorance. It's not, neither is religion of course, both can lead to ignorance. By definition, what you don't know is ignorance, and since science doesn't know everything it is therefore ignorant on those things. That's one way it can lead to ignorance at least. And who's to say that if science eventually discovers new things that those new things won't change and/or contradict our current conceptions of reality?

I see. You aren't trying to discredit science to show that faith is better, you are simply attempting to put the two on even footing by saying that both have areas of ignorance.

The problem is that faith doesn't just have areas of ignorance, faith is ignorance. Faith is merely ignorance claiming to be knowledge. Science is a tool by which we can gain knowledge and reduce ignorance. Sure, science has not eliminated all ignorance, and probably never will. But to put it on even footing with faith, which only prevents ignorance from being eliminated, is ridiculous.

By definition absolute statements and probable statements are not the same. Out of convenience some may want to mix the two, but for the sake of calling it like it is, I won't do that. Probability itself is not even a perfect tool of measurement. There's always a give or take margin of error, so it will never measure anything of 100%.

So you feel entirely comfortable making the absolute statement that, "there is NO logical basis, justification, or proof for anything absolute".

My point is that while there is always a small chance that a statement is incorrect, it is not unreasonable to make absolute statements when the chances of being wrong are extremely minuscule.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem is that faith doesn't just have areas of ignorance, faith is ignorance. Faith is merely ignorance claiming to be knowledge.

You seem to be projecting.

 

[Realist]

Thank you for responding, although this didn't really clarify too much for me. Here's the deal. Anything can mislead, even facts. However, it's a lot easier to be misled when you're believing something simply on faith than when you're believing it based on scientific studies. Science consantly attempts to correct itself to make sure it's not misleading. Religions like Christianity don't do that.

The bottom line is that science misleads a whole lot less than religions like Christianity because it keeps itself up to date.

I agree with you in part. Science for now does mislead a lot less than religion. That is not to say though that they actually correct themselves. That's assuming that the new observations they're using to replace old ones, won't themselves later need to be replaced, which means these new observations were never correct to begin with. This is why philosophically speaking, science can't know anything on the scale of truth; it only has facts which is just a body of observed data that "currently" stand the test of time and observation.

This isn't about absolute statements, though. This is about defining words. The point of saying that everything is natural is that everything is part of nature.

Absolutes are relevant to the point here. Also, naturalism isn't just about needing a definition, it's also an assertion about the nature of reality.
You rightly point out the distinction that everything "we know" through science is natural, which is not the same as saying everything in reality since there's more to reality than what we know and can ever know perhaps.

For instance, ghosts are part of nature, if they exist, and are therefore not supernatural. So, it's far from unreasonable to say that because everything we know of is part of nature (the universe), it is natural.

If ghosts exist, they may or may not be part of the natural world, it really depends. But there you go again assuming about the nature of all reality. It would be more reasonable to say that if ghosts exist, they are part of reality, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are part of nature, since we can't say that all of reality (or the universe) is only nature.
Maybe this will help but I actually agree that nature exist, I just disagree with you on the degree that it does.

 

[Realist]

I see. You aren't trying to discredit science to show that faith is better, you are simply attempting to put the two on even footing by saying that both have areas of ignorance.

The problem is that faith doesn't just have areas of ignorance, faith is ignorance. Faith is merely ignorance claiming to be knowledge. Science is a tool by which we can gain knowledge and reduce ignorance. Sure, science has not eliminated all ignorance, and probably never will. But to put it on even footing with faith, which only prevents ignorance from being eliminated, is ridiculous.

I've always viewed faith, from a Christian standpoint, as being active or as more of a practical thing rather than just a mere unproven belief to hold on to. Faith itself is not knowledge but in a sense it can be a tool used to gain knowledge of God, and to get God to act on it to bring about miracles, if it's His will that is.

So you feel entirely comfortable making the absolute statement that, "there is NO logical basis, justification, or proof for anything absolute".

Are you absolutely sure I made that statement, lol. To be serious though, I apologize for that. I could probably say as of now, we don't know if absolutes exist or not. I could also say I'm speaking from a reasonable and not necessarily from an absolute truth standpoint, but hopefully that clears it up.

My point is that while there is always a small chance that a statement is incorrect, it is not unreasonable to make absolute statements when the chances of being wrong are extremely minuscule.

Absolutes are 100% universally valid, no room for small chances of mistakes here.
Here's how Dictionary.com puts it,

Absolute: 1. free from imperfection
absolute definition | Dictionary.com

 

[Imagist]

You seem to be projecting.

Gee, you're so clever!

Do you have anything productive to add to this conversation or are you just taking potshots?

 

[Imagist]

I've always viewed faith, from a Christian standpoint, as being active or as more of a practical thing rather than just a mere unproven belief to hold on to. Faith itself is not knowledge but in a sense it can be a tool used to gain knowledge of God, and to get God to act on it to bring about miracles, if it's His will that is.

By what mechanism does faith bring about knowledge? By definition all faith does is pull "facts" from a void.

Are you absolutely sure I made that statement, lol. To be serious though, I apologize for that. I could probably say as of now, we don't know if absolutes exist or not. I could also say I'm speaking from a reasonable and not necessarily from an absolute truth standpoint, but hopefully that clears it up.

This is exactly the point I'm making. Reasonable truth is approximately the same as absolute truth, and it's okay to treat reasonably true statements as absolutely true statements in practical conversation.

Absolutes are 100% universally valid, no room for small chances of mistakes here.

Such things don't exist, so why not appropriate the idea for use in things that are 99.99999999% sure?

 

[mordorf]

Science can mislead just as religion can; both can lead to falsehoods and thus both can mislead.
Yes but science never make a claim and if it's proven wrong they still claim it to be true, no when science realize that their claim is wrong and can be proven wrong they don't get mad and claim that some supernatural being is the almighty and i don't care what you say i still believe and you can't disprove my god.
And the bible why haven't there been anything new in the bible for 2000 years why haven't God made a new book for these 2000 years, it's so strange that a supernatural god creates the universe and everything and starts to talk to the people in the bible for some hundred or thousand years and then just disappears isn't that strange.
Why won't you religious people prove that the god or designer exists.
If i make a claim that unicorns exist and someone else says not, then it's the one that claims that unicorns exist not the one who says that it doesn't that has to prove that there is unicorns.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem is that faith doesn't just have areas of ignorance, faith is ignorance. Faith is merely ignorance claiming to be knowledge.

You seem to be projecting.

Gee, you're so clever! Do you have anything productive to add to this conversation or are you just taking potshots?

Do you truly think that pathetic attempts to ridicule faith is productive? In fact, it is you who are childishly taking potshots.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines faith first and foremost as:

I. Belief, trust, confidence.

1. a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine).

1. b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority.​

To denigrate faith - all faith - as ignorance is petty bigotry, nothing more.

 

[Magic Man]

I agree with you in part. Science for now does mislead a lot less than religion. That is not to say though that they actually correct themselves. That's assuming that the new observations they're using to replace old ones, won't themselves later need to be replaced, which means these new observations were never correct to begin with. This is why philosophically speaking, science can't know anything on the scale of truth; it only has facts which is just a body of observed data that "currently" stand the test of time and observation.

The only problem with your line of reasoning is that along those lines we could never know anything, period. Science is the absolute best method we have for learning about our universe. If we can't claim to know anything through science, we simply can't claim to know anything at all.

Absolutes are relevant to the point here. Also, naturalism isn't just about needing a definition, it's also an assertion about the nature of reality.
You rightly point out the distinction that everything "we know" through science is natural, which is not the same as saying everything in reality since there's more to reality than what we know and can ever know perhaps.

I didn't say that everything we know through science is natural. I said anything in the universe is natural because it's in the universe. You can make a distinction between the universe and reality, but there's no need. The universe is reality. There's a lot to it. Saying everything is natural is just saying that the universe includes everything and anything that is.

If ghosts exist, they may or may not be part of the natural world, it really depends. But there you go again assuming about the nature of all reality. It would be more reasonable to say that if ghosts exist, they are part of reality, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are part of nature, since we can't say that all of reality (or the universe) is only nature.
Maybe this will help but I actually agree that nature exist, I just disagree with you on the degree that it does.

I'm not really sure why you have such a problem with the idea that nature is anything that's in the universe. It seems to offend you, and I'm not sure why.

The bottom line is that the supernatural has always been that which we can't explain in normal terms. When something happens like a door closing on its own, we sometimes assume it's some kind of spirit or something, and we label it supernatural. But if that spirit exists in nature, then it's natural. This is why I recently chose my signature. Most things that people have labelled as supernatural over the millenia have been explained in very natural terms by this point. For instance, the "parting of the Red Sea" from the Bible's perspective was a supernatural event. However, we know that that sea parts naturally at certain times with no help necessary from supernatural phenomena.

 

[Magic Man]

To denigrate faith - all faith - as ignorance is petty bigotry, nothing more.

Who was denigrating all faith? I must have missed that post. I did see someone denigrating religious faith (since that's what we're talking about here), but I have yet to see something generalizing all faith.

 

[Realist]

The only problem with your line of reasoning is that along those lines we could never know anything, period. Science is the absolute best method we have for learning about our universe. If we can't claim to know anything through science, we simply can't claim to know anything at all.

Philosophers have struggled with the problem of knowledge for centuries.
If we can never "truly" know anything due to the limits of our cognitive and scientific principles and methods, then so be it. That would be the reality of things. The only reason I'd see someone having a problem with this is if they fear that prospect, in which case they're in denial of it and pretending that science solves the problem is only using science as a crutch, ironically which is what some use religion for which is really an abuse of both systems of thought. So maybe some people accept science out of fear of relativism and/or postmodernism? That is not being able to *truly* verify if what we know is really correct, and therefore reducing every claim of knowledge to being true to the person and not necessarily true to objectivity or reality. Maybe the statement that "only God knows" is the most absolutely true statement that someone can humbly say.

I didn't say that everything we know through science is natural. I said anything in the universe is natural because it's in the universe. You can make a distinction between the universe and reality, but there's no need. The universe is reality. There's a lot to it. Saying everything is natural is just saying that the universe includes everything and anything that is.

Let me clarify what I mean by natural. I'm referring to the governing force of the universe, or perhaps rather "some" portion of the universe. This would cover the portion of the Universe that is under the laws of nature. Now maybe everything in the universe is natural in the sense that it has a particular way that it exists, which would be it's nature of it's existence in that sense. But "natural" can also apply to a force or system and it's laws guiding some portion of the Universe and the latter meaning is what I've been arguing against when it's taken to be absolute or applying to all of the Universe.

I'm not really sure why you have such a problem with the idea that nature is anything that's in the universe. It seems to offend you, and I'm not sure why.

As I mentioned before, I love science.

The bottom line is that the supernatural has always been that which we can't explain in normal terms. When something happens like a door closing on its own, we sometimes assume it's some kind of spirit or something, and we label it supernatural. But if that spirit exists in nature, then it's natural. This is why I recently chose my signature. Most things that people have labelled as supernatural over the millenia have been explained in very natural terms by this point. For instance, the "parting of the Red Sea" from the Bible's perspective was a supernatural event. However, we know that that sea parts naturally at certain times with no help necessary from supernatural phenomena.

The supernatural is not unexplained natural phenomena. If something was "claimed" to be supernatural and yet it was found to be natural, then it wasn't supernatural to begin with. Factoring what "nature" means, in this context, the supernatural is simply whatever is not confined to the laws of nature. That means it or whatever operates under different laws or can violate the laws of nature in place.
It's also presumptious to assume that every claim of supernatural is really an unexplained natural event that will be eventually explained. I've had experiences myself that can not be conclusively explained by science. Science would probably class these experiences as unexplained at best but that's not to assume they will be eventually explained to be natural.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem is that faith doesn't just have areas of ignorance, faith is ignorance. Faith is merely ignorance claiming to be knowledge.

Do you truly think that pathetic attempts to ridicule faith is productive? In fact, it is you who are childishly taking potshots. ... To denigrate faith - all faith - as ignorance is petty bigotry, nothing more.

Who was denigrating all faith? I must have missed that post. I did see someone denigrating religious faith (since that's what we're talking about here), but I have yet to see something generalizing all faith.

You would not consider

faith is ignorance. Faith is merely ignorance claiming to be knowledge.​

an instance of denigrating all faith?

 

[Realist]

By what mechanism does faith bring about knowledge? By definition all faith does is pull "facts" from a void.

I don't believe the mechanism can be scientifically understood; perhaps at best it can only be described. According to the Bible, the mechanism is supernatural. God reveals Himself via divine revelation to those who have faith in Him. Some theologians and philosophers of religion have mentioned that God can be known rationally as well, and that knowing about Him based on faith is only one way, not the only way.

This is exactly the point I'm making. Reasonable truth is approximately the same as absolute truth, and it's okay to treat reasonably true statements as absolutely true statements in practical conversation.

Absolute: 1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect
absolute definition | Dictionary.com

I've also read that absolute can also mean "applying to everything and everywhere", or of course as I mentioned before, being univerally valid.

Such things don't exist, so why not appropriate the idea for use in things that are 99.99999999% sure?

Such absolute things don't exist? God rings a bell!

 

[Magic Man]

Philosophers have struggled with the problem of knowledge for centuries.
If we can never "truly" know anything due to the limits of our cognitive and scientific principles and methods, then so be it. That would be the reality of things. The only reason I'd see someone having a problem with this is if they fear that prospect, in which case they're in denial of it and pretending that science solves the problem is only using science as a crutch, ironically which is what some use religion for which is really an abuse of both systems of thought. So maybe some people accept science out of fear of relativism and/or postmodernism? That is not being able to *truly* verify if what we know is really correct, and therefore reducing every claim of knowledge to being true to the person and not necessarily true to objectivity or reality.

There are two possibilities:

We can't know anything, in which case all discussions are ultimately pointless.

We can know things, in which case the scientific method is our best way to learn about things.

Let me clarify what I mean by natural. I'm referring to the governing force of the universe, or perhaps rather "some" portion of the universe. This would cover the portion of the Universe that is under the laws of nature. Now maybe everything in the universe is natural in the sense that it has a particular way that it exists, which would be it's nature of it's existence in that sense. But "natural" can also apply to a force or system and it's laws guiding some portion of the Universe and the latter meaning is what I've been arguing against when it's taken to be absolute or applying to all of the Universe.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but this made no sense to me.

As I mentioned before, I love science.

Well, that's sure a non sequitur. Care to elaborate on how that responds to my comment at all?

The supernatural is not unexplained natural phenomena. If something was "claimed" to be supernatural and yet it was found to be natural, then it wasn't supernatural to begin with.

That's the point exactly. Nothing is supernatural. Things which are claimed to be supernatural turn out to have very natural explanations.

Factoring what "nature" means, in this context, the supernatural is simply whatever is not confined to the laws of nature.

Again, exactly. And since everything is confined to the laws of nature, everything is natural. Just because we don't know a particular law of nature yet doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Magic Man]

You would not consider

faith is ignorance. Faith is merely ignorance claiming to be knowledge.
​

an instance of denigrating all faith?

Not considering we're talking about religious faith here. It's called context.

 

[Realist]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but this made no sense to me.

What I was saying is that the word "nature" has more than one meaning. I feel that me and you were disagreeing because we were NOT referencing the same meaning. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you didn't understand.

This is what I meant by the meaning I mentioned that nature as being a governing force:

Nature: 2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
nature definition | Dictionary.com


This is what I meant when I talked about the charasteristics of the way things exist:

Nature: 8.The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing.
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
nature definition | Dictionary.com

I'm assuming you were talking about nature in the sense of definition numbers 8 and 9, and not definition number 2. Definitions 8 and 9 are general, not mentioning how we exist. Whereas, definition 1 mentions how we or some portion of the Universe exist. Naturalism is a more extreme form of definition # 2; it specifically asserting how EVERYTHING exist. It's assumptuous I might add.

That's the point exactly. Nothing is supernatural. Things which are claimed to be supernatural turn out to have very natural explanations.

This is not a good conclusion. I'd rather say, from what scientists have tested from people so far, or have been able to test, there's no proven supernatural case. I think this is better because how do you know there isn't any supernatural evidence, YET? Or if science is even equipped to prove the supernatural even if something authentically supernatural even happened?

Again, exactly. And since everything is confined to the laws of nature, everything is natural. Just because we don't know a particular law of nature yet doesn't mean it's not there.

Again, another assumption. Or you're confusing the different definitions of "natural". One definition speaks for how we exists which can be supernaturally or natural, the other is a specific concept on how we exist and it mentions all of existence is of nature, nothing supernatural..