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

[Realist]

No, that's actually a perfect analogy. We say things are supernatural because we don't understand them. Once we understand them, they're perfectly natural. If we saw someone walking on water, we might call it supernatural, but if that person explained how they did it, we would call it quite natural, no matter how they had accomplished it.

The same goes for the unicorn or a ghost. We call ghosts supernatural because we don't understand them. However, if they really are just spirits of dead people, then they're still natural.

That doesn't add up. If lets say God explained how He could fly which is violating the law of gravity (which is a law of nature), then He obviously wouldn't explain it by natural means since it was breaking a law of nature. It wouldn't make sense to explain something violating a law of nature as being nature. That would be like trying to force a criminal who breaks laws to explain how he is a law abiding person. How would that work out? If you would call God's explanation a natural explanation then you'd have two different laws of nature contradicting each other, which also doesn't make sense.

From another twist, I already mentioned that that *assumes* that everything is natural or that everything is even understandible to scientists. If our ability to understand was what truly set apart natural from supernatural, then you just made God supernatural by your reasoning. God in some respects is beyond understanding. We could never fully understand His power for instance because they're infinite or unlimited.

 

[Realist]

Since defining the supernatural is dependent on what is natural, I think we may be arguing this in a wrong way. We should first define natural or nature, then we can probably move on otherwise, part of our misunderstanding is based on us arguing from two different meanings of nature.

I've already referenced that "nature" has more than one meaning. One definition is;

Nature: 1. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature. (Dictionary.com, "nature," in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. )

nature: 2: everything that exists.

The difference of course is one is the latter definition is more broader than the other the first definition (Definition #1). More specifically, the last definition is an absolute statement. So it's clear that the word "nature" is defined in varying forms in the context that we're speaking of it. Does nature only cover the material or observable universe or does it cover all of it? On what basis are you choosing the last definition over the first one?
I can tell you I choose the first definition because it's more reasonable in that we have at least proven that nature does exist, but we have not gone as far as proving that it is all that exists. The 2nd definition is an absolute statement, one which not only hasn't been proven but also can't be proven, since we have no logical or scientific basis to prove absolute statements.

I feel if we can't even get past this first step, then we won't reach a consensus since our argument centers around what "nature" means, and we've yet to settle down on the definition or which definition to use so we're arguing from two different meanings of what nature means.

 

[Magic Man]

That doesn't add up. If lets say God explained how He could fly which is violating the law of gravity (which is a law of nature), then He obviously wouldn't explain it by natural means since it was breaking a law of nature. It wouldn't make sense to explain something violating a law of nature as being nature. That would be like trying to force a criminal who breaks laws to explain how he is a law abiding person. How would that work out? If you would call God's explanation a natural explanation then you'd have two different laws of nature contradicting each other, which also doesn't make sense.

That's the thing. If he explained how he did it, it would become a law of nature. We don't know all of the laws of nature, and we might not ever. All he'd be doing is introducing a new one to us.

Since defining the supernatural is dependent on what is natural, I think we may be arguing this in a wrong way. We should first define natural or nature, then we can probably move on otherwise, part of our misunderstanding is based on us arguing from two different meanings of nature.

For these purposes, at least, I'm defining nature as anything in the universe. That means that everything is natural.

 

[Realist]

For these purposes, at least, I'm defining nature as anything in the universe. That means that everything is natural.

I've already showed that "nature" is defined in varying degrees. One definition mentions nature as only being a force in the material world, and this leaves room for an immaterial or spiritiual world (which would be the supernatural). The other definition of course is naturalism basically. I understand that you accept naturalism, but why or on what basis? How do you know everything is natural instead of as the other meaning suggest, that is, only perhaps some part or portion of the Universe being natural?

Also keep in mind, that just because a word is defined, that doesn't mean that it applies to something that exists. Just as we can define a unicorn or the word "immaterial", that is not to say that a unicorn or that something immaterial exists.

 

[Magic Man]

I've already showed that "nature" is defined in varying degrees. One definition mentions nature as only being a force in the material world, and this leaves room for an immaterial or spiritiual world (which would be the supernatural). The other definition of course is naturalism basically. I understand that you accept naturalism, but why or on what basis? How do you know everything is natural instead of as the other meaning suggest, that is, only perhaps some part or portion of the Universe being natural?

I know everything is natural because everything is a part of the universe, in other words a part of nature. It's very simple. Something can't be in the universe and be unnatural or supernatural.

 

[Realist]

I know everything is natural because everything is a part of the universe, in other words a part of nature. It's very simple. Something can't be in the universe and be unnatural or supernatural.

I know that you accept naturalism but I asked how do you know that assertion or position is valid, which you've failed to show. You're using the definition to prove that the definition is valid or that it applies to how existence really is, and that's circular. That's like saying naturalism is true because of naturalism which is all you're saying when you just keep repeating the definition without mentioning how do you know that that's actually how all of the Universe is. Especially when there are other definitions out there that mention nature as only covering only a part of the Universe, not all of it. So you're also pretending as if there's only one meaning, and arbitrarily selecting that one meaning over the other without any proof of which one being valid.

Also if all you keep doing to my examples of supernatural events is just calling them unknown laws of nature, then I can just keep going through all of the things that science classes as a law of nature, and just simply come up with an example of that being broken and you'd eventually be left not being certain of any law of nature. You've already questioned the legitimacy of science when you considered that the law of gravity not really being a law of nature by classing someone being able to fly as also being an unknown law of nature. That wouldn't add up unless scientists are unsure about the law of gravity and at the rate you're going classing "all" of my examples as unknown natural laws, there won't be any law of nature that science is certain of.

 

[Imagist]

I know of none but it wouldn't be fair to consult me on this because I've not really read a lot into the arguments for God. I'm not that far along my studies yet. From the little I can remember, the teleological and moral arguments for God made the most sense to me, and I'll try to articulate them here when I explore them more.

If your statement is "I don't know why I believe in god yet", then my response is "Then you shouldn't believe in god yet." Only a corrupt judge makes a verdict before the hearing from both sides. It may be that the reasons you find for believing in god aren't compelling, and you don't know that until you study them.

The only evidence I have is my experiences of God. To put this in context though, this was in response to your claim that nothing absolute exists. Where is your proof for that? *you can read below here to look at the context of the statement*

To put my statement in context, it was in response to your claim that absolutes don't exist...

 

[Magic Man]

I know that you accept naturalism but I asked how do you know that assertion or position is valid, which you've failed to show. You're using the definition to prove that the definition is valid or that it applies to how existence really is, and that's circular.

No, I'm using the definition to show that that's the definition I'm using to say that everything is natural. That's why I said way back when that this is a difference of definition. Someone who says that everything is natural is simply saying that everything is a part of the universe, and that the universe is nature. You may disagree with that, but it's hardly irrational or unreasonable. It actually makes a lot of sense.

 

[Realist]

If your statement is "I don't know why I believe in god yet", then my response is "Then you shouldn't believe in god yet." Only a corrupt judge makes a verdict before the hearing from both sides. It may be that the reasons you find for believing in god aren't compelling, and you don't know that until you study them.

This is way off. When did I ever say that I didn't know why I believed in God? I only said I have not read in depth through all of the rational arguments offered for Him. That only speaks for a logical basis for God but that is not to say I can't go by other things to believe in Him, like experience and faith. Those 2 are the precise reasons I believe in God I might add. A belief of course doesn't have to always be logically proven in order for people to accept it. Now of course, I may not have read in depth into a lot of the rational arguments for God but I have "watched" a lot of debates between atheists and Christians. I've also debated quite a few of atheists and even theists myself.

Besides that, my judgement is that I "believe" in God, I never judged or said that I "know" with logical or scientific basis that He exists. So my judgement is fairly good , I'd say.

 

[Realist]

No, I'm using the definition to show that that's the definition I'm using to say that everything is natural. That's why I said way back when that this is a difference of definition. Someone who says that everything is natural is simply saying that everything is a part of the universe, and that the universe is nature. You may disagree with that, but it's hardly irrational or unreasonable. It actually makes a lot of sense.

Again, you still have given no proof as to why that definition actually applies to reality. All you're doing is explaining away the issue and not answering the question. Why did you select that definition over the other more modest one? How do you know that naturalism is a correct description of reality or the Universe? Or maybe I should also start saying the supernatural exists because it's defined as existing.

You still haven't answered or responded to my other objection neither. This one below:
Also if all you keep doing to my examples of supernatural events is just calling them unknown laws of nature, then I can just keep going through all of the things that science classes as a law of nature, and just simply come up with an example of that being broken and you'd eventually be left not being certain of any law of nature. You've already questioned the legitimacy of science when you considered that the law of gravity not really being a law of nature by classing someone being able to fly as also being an unknown law of nature. That wouldn't add up unless scientists are unsure about the law of gravity and at the rate you're going classing "all" of my examples as unknown natural laws, there won't be any law of nature that science is certain of.

 

[Magic Man]

Again, you still have given no proof as to why that definition actually applies to reality.

No proof required. This is very simple. It's that way because it makes sense.

All you're doing is explaining away the issue and not answering the question.

No, all I'm doing is showing you how it's just a matter of perspective. Some people have no need of the word "supernatural". For them it just makes no sense.

Why did you select that definition over the other more modest one?

What do you mean "more modest one"? What's immodest about saying that the universe is natural, so anything in it is natural? It doesn't seem to be a matter of modest or immodest at all to me. That's where I think you're getting confused and why I said that saying that everything is natural is not a way of saying that God does not exist. So, I'm not sure what youre beef is with the statement. You seem offended by it.

Also if all you keep doing to my examples of supernatural events is just calling them unknown laws of nature...

Well, that's what they would be. You're missing the whole point here. I'm not saying "This is better than your philosophy", so I'm not sure what is so offensive to you. I'm saying that people simply use a different definition than you do. By that definition, even the supernatural is natural because it can be explained naturally somehow.

 

[Realist]

No proof required. This is very simple. It's that way because it makes sense.

No, all I'm doing is showing you how it's just a matter of perspective. Some people have no need of the word "supernatural". For them it just makes no sense.

I don't see how that can make sense unless you have proof, if you're rational that is. It only makes sense if you accept that the assertion and/or definition of naturalism as being one that applies to reality which is the question that you refuse to answer. Or unless you call it like it is, your "belief".

What do you mean "more modest one"? What's immodest about saying that the universe is natural, so anything in it is natural? It doesn't seem to be a matter of modest or immodest at all to me. That's where I think you're getting confused and why I said that saying that everything is natural is not a way of saying that God does not exist. So, I'm not sure what youre beef is with the statement. You seem offended by it.

You missed it. I clearly explained many times that the word "nature" is defined in varying degrees. One definition states that everything is nature. The modest one, i.e. the non-absolute one, states that nature is only a force of the "material" world, which leaves room for a immaterial or spiritual world which you couldn't call natural since those 2 aren't "material".

Well, that's what they would be. You're missing the whole point here. I'm not saying "This is better than your philosophy", so I'm not sure what is so offensive to you. I'm saying that people simply use a different definition than you do. By that definition, even the supernatural is natural because it can be explained naturally somehow.

For the record, my signature quote doesn't necessarily claim that the supernatural or natural world exists. Either /or may be false, all it's saying is that it's unreasonable "i.e. there's no PROOF" to support either extreme position.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't see how that can make sense unless you have proof, if you're rational that is. It only makes sense if you accept that the assertion and/or definition of naturalism as being one that applies to reality which is the question that you refuse to answer. Or unless you call it like it is, your "belief".

That's exactly it. We're assuming that definition is the one. That's why I said it's a matter of definition. I'm really getting tired of saying this. There's no question I refuse to answer. It's simple. That's the definition because that's the one that makes the most sense to "naturalists". It's not like we're debating whether or not there's a God. We're just calling things by different names. It's like you and a Muslim going back and forth. you both agree that there is a God, you just differ on the definitions and details. We both realize that there is the universe. We're just using different terminology to describe it.

You missed it. I clearly explained many times that the word "nature" is defined in varying degrees. One definition states that everything is nature. The modest one, i.e. the non-absolute one, states that nature is only a force of the "material" world, which leaves room for a immaterial or spiritual world which you couldn't call natural since those 2 aren't "material".

There's nothing modest or immodest about it, though. Saying everything is natural is not immodest. I'm not even sure why you choose to describe it as such, other than your being offended because you think it's an attempt to disprove God. The immaterial and spiritual world are natural. They are part of the universe. It's natural for people to have a spriritual experience.

For the record, my signature quote doesn't necessarily claim that the supernatural or natural world exists. Either /or may be false, all it's saying is that it's unreasonable "i.e. there's no PROOF" to support either extreme position.

Proof is irrelevant. That's the point. We're not debating whether or not god exists. We're debating definitions. That's all. To someone who claims that everything is natural, God can still exist. It's not unreasonable at all to say that everything is natural, considering everything is in the universe. It's very simple, and you're making it way too complex. Don't think too much into it.

 

[Realist]

That's exactly it. We're assuming that definition is the one. That's why I said it's a matter of definition. I'm really getting tired of saying this. There's no question I refuse to answer. It's simple. That's the definition because that's the one that makes the most sense to "naturalists". It's not like we're debating whether or not there's a God. We're just calling things by different names. It's like you and a Muslim going back and forth. you both agree that there is a God, you just differ on the definitions and details. We both realize that there is the universe. We're just using different terminology to describe it.

Well before, you outrule the supernatural, you should make it clear you're doing it based on no reasonable proof. I say this until you can show which definition of "nature" that has been offered in this thread is the correct one and the only way to do that is to show which corresponds to reality, and you do that with PROOF. My signature quote is saying that there's no proof to say that everything is natural or supernatural. It is not necessarily saying that those views are false. There's no logical basis for either position and that equals unreasonable.

There's nothing modest or immodest about it, though. Saying everything is natural is not immodest. I'm not even sure why you choose to describe it as such, other than your being offended because you think it's an attempt to disprove God. The immaterial and spiritual world are natural. They are part of the universe. It's natural for people to have a spriritual experience.

Um no. I mean modest as in a non-absolute statement. One that doesn't speak for "everything " in the universe as naturalism does. Naturalism says "everything" is natural compared to the other definition I referenced which mentions only a "portion" of the Universe is natural. It's obvious one is extending nature much further than the other.

Proof is irrelevant. That's the point. We're not debating whether or not god exists. We're debating definitions. That's all. To someone who claims that everything is natural, God can still exist. It's not unreasonable at all to say that everything is natural, considering everything is in the universe. It's very simple, and you're making it way too complex. Don't think too much into it.

I know we're arguing definitions and proof is very relevant here. That's how we establish which definition applies to how the Universe is. Besides, you're using the word "reasonable" and that assumes proof. So if you don't want to prove that your definition applies to reality, then you have no "reasonable" basis to assert that God or everything is natural. It's your "belief" that God and everything else is natural and it makes sense to you, it's not necessarily reasonable.

 

[Magic Man]

Well before, you outrule the supernatural, you should make it clear you're doing it based on no reasonable proof. You'd also have no reasonable proof to go by to say that my signature quote is incorrect unless you can show which definition of "nature" that has been offered in this thread is the correct one. My signature quote is saying that there's no proof to say that everything is natural or supernatural. Otherwise, give me proof by proving either of the definitions, not what makes sense to you.

Oh, for God's sake, it's not about proof. Look, the bottom line is that anything that happens in the universe is natural. How can a human violate the laws of nature? They can't. If they do something, it's within the laws of nature. It might be a new twist to a law or a new law that we didn't know, but it's still nature.

Um no. I mean modest as in a non-absolute statement. One that doesn't speak for "everything " in the universe as naturalism does. Naturalism says "everything" is natural compared to the other definition I referenced which mentions only a "portion" of the Universe is natural. It's obvious one is extending nature much further than the other.

Then modest is a poor choice of words.

I know we're arguing definitions and proof is very relevant here. That's how we establish which definition applies the Universe is. Besides, you're using the word "reasonable" and that assumes proof. So if you don't want to prove that your definition applies to reality, then you have no "reasonable" basis to assert that God can be natural.

Nope, proof is still irrelevant. How do you propose to prove that something is natural or supernatural? First you need a starting definition. How do you prove that definition? You don't. Nature encompasses the universe. If something is part of the universe, it's part of nature. I can't say that enough apparently. If you disagree with that definition, then fine, but you'd have to show why. I can't prove that definition because it's not a matter of proving it or disproving it.

Of course, it seems you just want to continue arguing at this point, so carry on.

 

[Realist]

Nope, proof is still irrelevant. How do you propose to prove that something is natural or supernatural? First you need a starting definition. How do you prove that definition? You don't. Nature encompasses the universe. If something is part of the universe, it's part of nature. I can't say that enough apparently. If you disagree with that definition, then fine, but you'd have to show why. I can't prove that definition because it's not a matter of proving it or disproving it.

Of course, it seems you just want to continue arguing at this point, so carry on.

You can't have it both ways here. You mentioned nature encompasses reality. Okay, that's an assertion based on how you defined nature. You seem to be using it as if that's the way the Universe is, right? AT that point you're going beyond just definition, but also asserting that definition as be true or that it applies to reality and you don't think you'd need proof of that?

 

[Magic Man]

You can't have it both ways here. You mentioned nature encompasses reality. Okay, that's an assertion based on how you defined nature. You seem to be using it as if that's the way the Universe is, right? AT that point you're going beyond just definition, but also asserting that definition as be true or that it applies to reality and you don't think you'd need proof of that?

I'll tell you what, you tell me what could possibly serve as proof for such a thing, and I'll provide it. Until then, I'll continue with the reality that there's no such thing as proof for these purposes.

 

[Realist]

I'll tell you what, you tell me what could possibly serve as proof for such a thing, and I'll provide it. Until then, I'll continue with the reality that there's no such thing as proof for these purposes.

It's your "absolute" statement. My only point is if there's no proof either way, so they're both currently unreasonable. Besides that, we both already agreed that there's no proof for if either of our definitions of nature. It just seemed you still wanted to use it as a statement of fact without proof, which at that point I'll start requesting for the proof.

 

[Magic Man]

It's your "absolute" statement. My only point is if there's no proof either way, so they're both currently unreasonable. Besides that, we both already agreed that there's no proof for if either of our definitions of nature. It just seemed you still wanted to use it as a statement of fact without proof, which at that point I'll start requesting for the proof.

The problem is that you're assuming it's a question of proof or lack thereof. It's not. It's like me showing you an apple and me calling it an apple, and you telling me to prove it. Proof is a nonsensical thing in that case.

The fact is that the supernatural is simply things we don't understand. Once we understand it, we say it's perfectly natural.

 

[Imagist]

This is way off. When did I ever say that I didn't know why I believed in God? I only said I have not read in depth through all of the rational arguments offered for Him. That only speaks for a logical basis for God but that is not to say I can't go by other things to believe in Him, like experience and faith. Those 2 are the precise reasons I believe in God I might add. A belief of course doesn't have to always be logically proven in order for people to accept it. Now of course, I may not have read in depth into a lot of the rational arguments for God but I have "watched" a lot of debates between atheists and Christians. I've also debated quite a few of atheists and even theists myself.

Besides that, my judgement is that I "believe" in God, I never judged or said that I "know" with logical or scientific basis that He exists. So my judgement is fairly good , I'd say.

What experience lead you to believe that god exists?

Faith is not a reason, it's an admission of lack of reason.

How can you honestly believe something that you don't know?