Pastor AIO:

I can't believe that we are still on different pages.

I'm not trying to play semantics.  I'm  not making any object contingent on its semantic definition.  I'm making a CONCEPT contingent on it's semantic definition.  There is a vast different.

Nature is not an object.  Nature is a concept of one way the world works that is contrasted with the super-natural.  In order to know what you are talking about when you say Nature we need to have it defined well.  Do you get that?

I don't know if it was on this thread or the other one about 'what is supernatural' that I said that even the word Everything makes a distinction from somethings, or Nothing. 

So Existence is defined against another concept called Non-existence.

From the definition of Universe I know that the statement "The Earth is The Universe" is wrong. Can you tell me Why?

No Huxley, being a mystic does not mean that you called everything that you don't understand supernatural.   I wonder if my points are going totally over your head. 

Once you have a definition, then what determines how you classify events rests on whether or not they fit the definition.  It is an arbitrary definition but the one we are working with at the moment.  Nature relies on Space and Time and it's influences traversing space and time.  Armed with this definition there is not way that Newton would think that modern technology were supernatural. 


First I want to make sure that you are aware that we are using a working definition of Nature at the moment.  We can know that it is not obeying another natural law because it does not require space or time to operate.  Since all natural laws require space and time to operate it is easy to check if a phenomenon seems reliant on space time.  IF not then it cannot be a Natural phenomenon.

OK, it is obvious that we are just crossing over each other.  But I think it would help tremendously if we go back to basic and try and answer some really simple questions, some of which you have been avoiding:

1)  Give examples of things that do NOT operate in space-time.  ( I wonder if you included matter/energy in your definition of space.  If you don't, can you justified your definition of space?)

2) Give examples of things that are constantly flouting the laws of nature.


To address one point from above - you said Nature is NOT an objects.

3)  What is a lump of rock, according to your definition of Nature?.

huxley2:

OK, it is obvious that we are just crossing over each other.  But I think it would help tremendously if we go back to basic and try and answer some really simple questions, some of which you have been avoiding:

1)  Give examples of things that do NOT operate in space-time.  ( I wonder if you included matter/energy in your definition of space.  If you don't, can you justified your definition of space?)

2) Give examples of things that are constantly flouting the laws of nature.


To address one point from above - you said Nature is NOT an objects.

3)  What is a lump of rock, according to your definition of Nature?.

Yes we are truly crossing wires because your 'really simple questions' is in no way going back to basics. However I'll answer them (as a leisurely diversion from the main issue).

1) For me, Spacetime is the field in which natural events occur. These events are separated from each other by various degrees of space and time. For instance London is separated from Lagos by about 6,000 miles of space. Dawn is separated from dusk by about 12 hours of time. I do not include matter and energy in my most basic definition of Spacetime although I believe that matter and energy can influence spacetime, they are not aspects of Spacetime.

Like I said before, if I have a precognitive vision of tomorrow's news then that would flout the Natural Law that says that influence/impressions have to travel across space and across time in a futureward direction.

2) Question 1 is pretty much the same as question 2 so I'll deal with them together. Afterall to transcend the limitations of spacetime is to flout Nature (as defined as occurring within spacetime).
The very idea behind Sympathetic Magic requires that such Nature be transcended. If I have a Doll named Huxley and I get a nail and drive it into my Huxley's arm, a certain other Huxley in Manchester ought not to be aware of that. If however at the very moment I drove the nail into my doll's arm Huxley2 felt a sharp pain in his arm then somehow my act has been transmitted across space to have an effect on your arm. also the effect of my act could be instantaneous which means that there has been no time for any influence from my act to have travelled all the way to manchester across spacetime to you. According to our definition of Nature what happened happened through supernatural means.

Now you can dismiss this all as voodoo rubbish so I'll provide another example from the annals of scientific enquiry. I'm sure that you've heard of the EPR experiment. Imagine two particles travelling many miles apart. What would you say if we altered one of them and observed an immediate change in the other many miles away? How did the other know that an alteration was taking place in it's partner? How did the information travel all those miles faster than the speed of light (a physical impossibility). The experiment and it's implications are better explained in these quotes:

Another view of the EPR concept is to conceive of a pair of two particles traveling in opposite directions, and required by the Pauli Exclusion Principle to have opposite spins. (The Pauli Exclusion Principle may be considered to be absolutely essential to any viable theory of quantum mechanics, and in fact was the key link in which Einstein, et al hoped to disprove the quantum theory. It just didn’t work out too well -- the EPR Experiment has become a major supporting milestone for Quantum Physics. Bummer.)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, When the spin of one particle is unilaterally changed, an astounding experimental result is that the second particle’s spin “immediately” flips of its own accord (and thus maintains the validity of the Pauli Exclusion Principle). Furthermore, the means by which the information of the first spin flip is transferred to the second particle (so that it too can flip) is information which is required to travel faster than the speed of light. While the information transfer may not be simultaneous (limits on the experimental apparatus prohibits any proof of simultaneity), it nevertheless -- within the time frame of the Planck constant or speeds in excess of the speed of light -- must connects the two particles in some fundamental manner.

The Einstein-Poldalsky-Rosen Experiment (the EPR Experiment) has been described by several authors.

Herbert [1] describes the situation of two quantum particles which are once together flying apart and being measured at two distant locations. There exists a connection between the particles such that the fact of an observation of particle A is relayed to the distant particle B, it such a manner that the communication, “does not diminish with distance, cannot be shielded, and travels faster than light.” The fact of the two particles once being together is sufficient to mingle the particles’ phases (which the author refers to as “quantum phase entanglement”). This results in the effect being “non-local” (whereas all ordinary light-speed-limited forces are referred to as “local”).

http://www.halexandria.org/dward148.htm

In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. Quantum mechanics predicts through Bell's inequality the direct violation of this principle[1]. Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles violate this principle: they have been shown to influence each other when physically separated by 18 km, thus the principle of locality is false

Einstein's View

[edit]EPR Paradox
Albert Einstein felt that there was something fundamentally incorrect with quantum mechanics since it predicted violations of locality. In a famous paper he and his co-authors articulated the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox. Thirty years later John Stewart Bell responded with a paper which stated (paraphrased) that no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics (Bell's theorem).
[edit]Philosophical View
Einstein assumed that principle of locality was necessary, and there could be no violations of it. He said[18]:
“ The following idea characterises the relative independence of objects far apart in space A and B: external influence on A has no direct influence on B; this is known as the Principle of Local Action, which is used consistently only in field theory. If this axiom were to be completely abolished, the idea of the existence of quasienclosed systems, and thereby the postulation of laws which can be checked empirically in the accepted sense, would become impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

3) a lump of rock is an object that exhibits Natural properties and possibly also Supernatural properties.

@ Pastor AIO
I ready enjoy reading your perspective on the search for the ultimate truth. You are quite unlike others who rely on emotions and populist assertions to support their argument. You are one theist i enjoy following as i follow most of your posts, as you are a well researched fellow.

Now lets look at your arguments;

Nature is not an object.  Nature is a concept of one way the world works that is contrasted with the super-natural.  In order to know what you are talking about when you say Nature we need to have it defined well.  Do you get that?

Yes nature is everything that is perceived and known of the universe and how the elements that make up the universe interact with each other, from the smallest known element - mesons, pions, gluons, etc,  to the largest - galaxies, quasers, etc.  The whole is held in an energy-matter equilibrium.

So for you to say Nature is one way the world works, are you saying the supernatural is an alternative way the world works? Because according to the supernatural way, nothing is known for certain and no formula or method  can be worked out to understand the supernatural universe.

Pastor AIO:

To make my point, let me turn things around.  I say that there is no such thing as the Natural, only supernatural.  Everything is supernatural.  thundder, lightning, leprosy, boiling a cup of water, everything.  A supernatural agent is making everything happen as it happens.  Nature is a fallacy.  

This is where i am lost, because according to you supernatural  is opposed to natural, that is it is beyond natural. But all those processes above is clearly understood, and can be replicated and controlled by anybody. this same argument is what gave rise to science. Because science had shown that a supernatural agent is not necessary for for the formation of the universe, Earth, Life, Eclipse, etc.

Once you have a definition, then what determines how you classify events rests on whether or not they fit the definition.  It is an arbitrary definition but the one we are working with at the moment.  Nature relies on Space and Time and it's influences traversing space and time.  Armed with this definition there is not way that Newton would think that modern technology were supernatural.

Yes nature relies on space-time-energy continuum because we are incapable of  escaping that capsule. I feel newton would view today's technology as supernatural (until he his taught post newtonian physics) because he will have to grapple with atoms, electrons, radioactivity, viruses, and a host of other issues that was not known during his time. He would not be able to phantom how a Light Emitting Diode works not to talk of how your computer and internet works.

If newton were however, using our definition, to see a glass dematerialise and rematerialise elsewhere he would call it non natural.  If by definition, in nature bodies have to travel through space then such vanishing and reappearing elsewhere could be occurring according to some Law of the Universe but it wouldn't be a Natural Law.  A spiritual or divine Law perhaps but not a Natural law.

According to quantum mechanics, it is possible for information ( a set of parameters defining a particle) to dematerialize at a point in space and materialize in another point in space.

Whether or not there were minds then (another interesting idea but miles divorced from the trend of this thread now) the fact of nature is that impressions were being made by objects upon each other.  The laws of nature tell us that marks of water erosion upon landscape cannot have been formed prior to water being present on that landscape.
So it seems that whether or not there is a mind to perceive events those events are still believed to interact according to the laws of nature.  

Also according to Einstein, time is dependent on the frame of reference the two objects are traveling relative to the speed of light, so it is theoretically possible to perceive the water erosion prior to the water being present. Although i must confess the theory has to do with moving bodies.

You said supernatural events happens  all the time and many things flout our known natural laws, can you please give examples. Because i had expended a lot of energy in the past looking for supernatural occurrences,  been to babalawos, mamalawos and even prophetesses but had not been able to prove their efficacy. Most of them are like psychologists, they feed you back with information taken from you, and i always provide wrong information of course.

The main problem with these spiritualists are that they are more slippery than a snake in a pot of okro, they make a vague prediction, if it comes to past they would take huge glory, if it fails they have numerous excuses. When a big pastor or G. O. dies in a ghastly accident like Oshoffa or Odukoya, they will claim God had called the person to come to heaven, but if a non-believer dies, they will say God or Devil has dealt with the person.

Finally, as i always say, our over reliance on spiritualism is nothing new, it is a phase in our spiritual evolution. Others like Europe, China and the original Americans had far more elaborate spiritual systems than ours, remember people used to be tried and burned for witch craft. Even India that was number one in terms of Juju is going IT and leaving spiritualism. So i believe we too will leave all these spiritualism and embrace NATURALISM (science) in the near future.

Hi Wirinet. Thanks for the compliments.

I guess some of the confusion can come from the fact that this conversation has taken place over two threads. The other one is 'What is Supernatural?'. There I made it clear that I just believe that what is is. There are various Laws of being. However if we want to categorise those laws into different types, ie Natural and Supernatural, then we need proper rigorous definitions for those terms.

Failure to define Nature makes our use of the word nonsensical at best. We should just say that there are laws of being and we keep discovering more about them every day. If we say that there are two types of laws, natural and supernatural and that infact the only ones that exist are the natural ones, however we have no idea what we mean by Natural laws as opposed to supernatural laws, then I'm out of the conversation because I don't want anyone to mistake me for an idiot.

In a bid to offer a definition of Nature (Not THE definition in absolute terms but A definition, an Arbitrary definition) I suggested that we should call natural things such things that depended on Spacetime and on information travelling across space time. Therefore if we saw phenomena that did not require anything travelling across SpaceTime as specified in our definition of Nature then that phenomena must be Supernatural.
Also it is not required that we know all the laws of the universe before we make the distinction between Nature and Supernature. All we need is the definition of Nature then we can check the law to see if it tallies with our definition.

Pastor AIO:

3) a lump of rock is an object that exhibits Natural properties and possibly also Supernatural properties.

Pastor, is a lump of rock space or is it time? Where does it fit in your conceptualisation of nature? In fact, where do you fit OBJECTS in your conceptualisation of nature?

huxley2:

Pastor, is a lump of rock space or is it time? Where does it fit in your conceptualisation of nature? In fact, where do you fit OBJECTS in your conceptualisation of nature?

Huxley, for someone that can be quite astute and intelligent at times, there are also times when you can be quite obtuse.

I thought that we had already discussed about whether Nature referred to Stuff or to Processes.

anyway sha, no, a lump of rock is not space or time. It exists in space and time. It has position and is extended in space and also exists over a span of time.

How do I fit objects into my conceptualisation of nature? For a start objects that are masses give off gravitational force. This gravitational force field is a projection into space. So Objects will have natural effects on other objects.

I hope all this is not like your forgetting the meaning of existentialism.

Pastor AIO:

Huxley, for someone that can be quite astute and intelligent at times, there are also times when you can be quite obtuse.

I thought that we had already discussed about whether Nature referred to Stuff or to Processes.

anyway sha, no, a lump of rock is not space or time. It exists in space and time. It has position and is extended in space and also exists over a span of time.

How do I fit objects into my conceptualisation of nature? For a start objects that are masses give off gravitational force. This gravitational force field is a projection into space. So Objects will have natural effects on other objects.

I hope all this is not like your forgetting the meaning of existentialism.

I apologise for appearing to be a nuisance, but I think you ideas are far too loose and I reckon they need tightening up. That is why I am asking all these questions.

Now suppose we are trying to build an ontological domain of existence. Under your conceptualisation you would have the following categories:

1) Nature (Space-time)

2) Objects in Nature (or matter eg lump of rock, coal, goat, atom of carbon, etc, etc)

3) Supernatural ( whatever they are)

Do you agree with this? Why don't you have objects as part of nature. Where would you categorise things like energy, processes, events, numbers? If you do not agree with this, please, can you provide the main categories within your preferred ontological domain?

Thankx

huxley2:

So far, I agree. That ties in with the definition of nature I gave earlier, according to which nature is matter, energy, time, space, events, experience.

huxley2:

Why don't you have objects as part of nature.

Pastor AIO:

The point I'm making is that defining something as 'everything', such as when you say Nature is Everything that exist, is the Grandaddy of all absurdities.

Pastor AIO:

A definition does cannot include everything that exists. Your definition of Nature is not a definition at all.

Pastor AIO:
Secondly, having pointed that out I tried to help out with a possible definition of Nature. Nature occupies space and time and Natural influences traverse Space and Time (in a futureward direction). This is the definition that we are working with at the moment and any reference to any other definition will only confuse issues because with differing definition what I'm calling nature might not be what you are calling nature.

Pastor AIO:
With a definition of Nature you do not need to have full knowledge of all the laws of nature. Once you have defined Nature when you discover a Law you can then determine whether it is a natural law or some other kind of law.

Pastor AIO:
Once you have the definition of Nature you don't need to know every natural thing that can possibly happen. When you come across something you can assess against your definition whether or not it is Natural.

Are we missing something . . . or the gist has been turned around?

The reason why i didn't join in the discussion from the begining is very simple; Atheist generally are a set of confused people as sometimes they give you reasons why they are not an atheist (because they are not sure where they belong). Ask them the simple meaning of an atheist you will find out that their reasons for not being an atheist is directly linked to the true definition of an atheist.

What a bunch of confused people they are .

No point cracking my brain on baseless topic.

@skyone
it would had been better if you didn't post at all. . .people are having a sensible debate and you just barge in with senseless rubbish.
Whats the meaning of your post? Next time cross check b4 you start embarrasing yourself on NL.

skyone:


The reason why i didn't join in the discussion from the begining is very simple; Atheist generally are a set of confused people as sometimes they give you reasons why they are not an atheist (because they are not sure where they belong). Ask them the simple meaning of an atheist you will find out that their reasons for not being an atheist is directly linked to the true definition of an atheist.

What a bunch of confused people they are .

No point cracking my brain on baseless topic.

@skyone,

How body?  I can well understand your concerns. On the other hand, the reason why I joined the discussion is to point out that very thing: that atheism as held in many atheists' mindset is simply a "reaction based on a bias. . rather than an objective position" (borrowing from Pastor AIO). Often, after sitting back to watch atheists discuss their worldview, I then discussed my approach in engaging atheist thinking in this thread, and then repeated the 10 points that their logic could be summarised to -

      1. not all atheists have the same outlook on the world

      2. some atheists tend to believe in what 'strict atheism' rejects or denies

      3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

      4. we haven't found any 'proof' or 'evidence' for most atheist assertions

      5. atheism means more than the simplistic definition held by the average typical atheist

      6. atheism does not "disprove" theistic claims

      7. naturalism alone does not satisfactorily explain the realities of our known world

      8. naturalism is also a belief-system that holds dogmatic assertions

      9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue

    10. fallacious logicum is at the root of many atheistic arguments.

It turns out that we're seeing the same thing repeatedly; and so far I'm inclined again to agree that it is a "reaction based on a bias. . rather than an objective position".

However, we should be sensitive to other people's feelings, though. Just like Tùdor observed just above, this subject is a very sensitive one for many people, both theists and atheists alike. We'll do our best to bring them round to consider something about their position that many of them may not have previously given good thought to.

Cheers.

Pastor AIO:

Yes we are truly crossing wires because your 'really simple questions' is in no way going back to basics. However I'll answer them (as a leisurely diversion from the main issue).

1) For me, Spacetime is the field in which natural events occur. These events are separated from each other by various degrees of space and time. For instance London is separated from Lagos by about 6,000 miles of space. Dawn is separated from dusk by about 12 hours of time. I do not include matter and energy in my most basic definition of Spacetime although I believe that matter and energy can influence spacetime, they are not aspects of Spacetime.

Like I said before, if I have a precognitive vision of tomorrow's news then that would flout the Natural Law that says that influence/impressions have to travel across space and across time in a futureward direction.

2) Question 1 is pretty much the same as question 2 so I'll deal with them together. Afterall to transcend the limitations of spacetime is to flout Nature (as defined as occurring within spacetime).
The very idea behind Sympathetic Magic requires that such Nature be transcended. If I have a Doll named Huxley and I get a nail and drive it into my Huxley's arm, a certain other Huxley in Manchester ought not to be aware of that. If however at the very moment I drove the nail into my doll's arm Huxley2 felt a sharp pain in his arm then somehow my act has been transmitted across space to have an effect on your arm. also the effect of my act could be instantaneous which means that there has been no time for any influence from my act to have travelled all the way to manchester across spacetime to you. According to our definition of Nature what happened happened through supernatural means.

Now you can dismiss this all as voodoo rubbish so I'll provide another example from the annals of scientific enquiry. I'm sure that you've heard of the EPR experiment. Imagine two particles travelling many miles apart. What would you say if we altered one of them and observed an immediate change in the other many miles away? How did the other know that an alteration was taking place in it's partner? How did the information travel all those miles faster than the speed of light (a physical impossibility). The experiment and it's implications are better explained in these quotes:
http://www.halexandria.org/dward148.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

3) a lump of rock is an object that exhibits Natural properties and possibly also Supernatural properties.

Pastor, thankz for the EPR references. I had come across this many years ago, and until I read your post could not remember it. In fact, the EPR illustrate the key thrust of my position - which is that;

How do you know that what you have observe does not obey a law(s) currently unknown to us?

Are we aware of ALL the possible FIELDS that envelops the universe of space-time? Could these particle be influencing each other along such unknown fields?

You are probably familiar with the multi-nation multi-billion dollar electron accelerator (Hadron?) experiment to investigate the Higgs field, are you not? Could these electrons be interacting along the Higgs field.

Can you think of any phenomena that were previously unexplained and consequently thought supernatural before electro-magnetism was discover? The Northen Lights comes to mind.

pilgrim.1:

@skyone,

How body?  I can well understand your concerns. On the other hand, the reason why I joined the discussion is to point out that very thing: that atheism as held in many atheists' mindset is simply a "reaction based on a bias. . rather than an objective position" (borrowing from Pastor AIO). Often, after sitting back to watch atheists discuss their worldview, I then discussed my approach in engaging atheist thinking in this thread, and then repeated the 10 points that their logic could be summarised to -

      1. not all atheists have the same outlook on the world

      2. some atheists tend to believe in what 'strict atheism' rejects or denies

      3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

      4. we haven't found any 'proof' or 'evidence' for most atheist assertions

      5. atheism means more than the simplistic definition held by the average typical atheist

      6. atheism does not "disprove" theistic claims

      7. naturalism alone does not satisfactorily explain the realities of our known world

      8. naturalism is also a belief-system that holds dogmatic assertions

      9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue

    10. fallacious logicum is at the root of many atheistic arguments.

It turns out that we're seeing the same thing repeatedly; and so far I'm inclined again to agree that it is a "reaction based on a bias. . rather than an objective position".

However, we should be sensitive to other people's feelings, though. Just like Tùdor observed just above, this subject is a very sensitive one for many people, both theists and atheists alike. We'll do our best to bring them round to consider something about their position that many of them may not have previously given good thought to.

Cheers.

What do these words mean?

1) Objective

2) Dogma or dogmatic, or dogmatist

3) fallacious logicum

It would help tremendously if you could illustrate you response with how each word or terminology applies to the atheism and theist worldviews.

Thankz

huxley2:

Pastor, thankz for the EPR references. I had come across this many years ago, and until I read your post could not remember it. In fact, the EPR illustrate the key thrust of my position - which is that;

How do you know that what you have observe does not obey a law(s) currently unknown to us?

Are we aware of ALL the possible FIELDS that envelops the universe of space-time? Could these particle be influencing each other along such unknown fields?

You are probably familiar with the multi-nation multi-billion dollar electron accelerator (Hadron?) experiment to investigate the Higgs field, are you not? Could these electrons be interacting along the Higgs field.

Can you think of any phenomena that were previously unexplained and consequently thought supernatural before electro-magnetism was discover? The Northen Lights comes to mind.

Gentlemen, I think we've moved past this roundabout discussion. No offence, but I don't see anything that advances what has been discussed before. At the bottom of all this is the question of what distinguishes between the 'natural' and 'supernatural' - and even the Hadron was not embarked upon to investigate the supernatural. Not even close is the question of whether or not we aware of ALL the possible FIELDS that envelops the universe of space-time.
We're all asking questions contained within what we ALREADY know currently - and the examples are asking the naturalist to explicate why such experiences and events are not contained within 'known naturalistic laws' or assumptions. Why do these phenomena seem to have no naturalistic explanations to them, even though they cannot be denied as having occured? Do we take it that the difficulty lies at just one premise: a tribal loyalty to the "-ism" of Naturalism?

Just my observation.

huxley2:

What do these words mean?

1) Objective

2) Dogma or dogmatic, or dogmatist

3) fallacious logicum

It would help tremendously if you could illustrate you response with how each word or terminology applies to the atheism and theist worldviews.

Thankz

Hi huxley2,

I am almost in shock that you would ask such questions! Infact, amused as to even consider them a waste of time to reply to them! Have I not explained them previously? Did you ever check the links I left that point to the page where I ALREADY explained them? No offence, but if this discussion is not going anywhere, the atheist should retire and save us all this needless repetitions.

pilgrim.1:

Hi huxley2,

I am almost in shock that you would ask such questions! Infact, amused as to even consider them a waste of time to reply to them! Have I not explained them previously? Did you ever check the links I left that point to the page where I ALREADY explained them? No offence, but if this discussion is not going anywhere, the atheist should retire and save us all this needless repetitions.

Can you point me to the link?

huxley2:

Can you point me to the link?

Gladly.

pilgrim.1:

Often, after sitting back to watch atheists discuss their worldview, I then discussed my [size=14pt]approach[/size] in engaging atheist thinking in this thread, and then [size=14pt]repeated[/size] the 10 points that their logic could be summarised to - . . .

Then again, let me leave them plainly posted:

(a) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.96.html#msg3993584

(b) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.96.html#msg3993624

I hope these would help for now.

Pilgrim you keep going round and round in circles making this discussion boring
it's quite unintelligent for you to ask we explain phenomenom using natural laws we ALREADY know,when its entirely possible it could fall under the unknown law territory. . .If you were born in 200 BC would you be able to explain electricity with natural laws known to you by then?
Be objective for once please.

Tùdor:

Pilgrim you keep going round and round in circles making this discussion boring
it's quite unintelligent for you to ask we explain phenomenom using natural laws we ALREADY know,when its entirely possible it could fall under the unknown law territory. . .If you were born in 200 BC would you be able to explain electricity with natural laws known to you by then?
Be objective for once please.

I'm sorry but your allegations are wrong. I've explained my premise, discussed at length, moved past the usual atheist repetitions, and lately called for such repetions to grow up and move on. How is it that I'm the one now making your "round and round in circles"? The boredom here is coming from atheists posts asking the same boring questions that are not heading anywhere and seeking to narrow everything down to the "-ism" of their naturalism. If in all possible worlds there is nothing that is beyond your naturalism, how do you explicate the occurences that are exemplified as actually beyond your naturalism? Is that an unfair question to ask those who make such narrow assumptions? If these examples fail your naturalism, how is that anyone's fault?

Tùdor:

Pilgrim you keep going round and round in circles making this discussion boring
it's quite unintelligent for you to ask we explain phenomenom using natural laws we ALREADY know,when its entirely possible it could fall under the unknown law territory. . .If you were born in 200 BC would you be able to explain electricity with natural laws known to you by then?
Be objective for once please.

Interesting, Pilgrim1 has been going round in circles trying to show that a supernatural realm exist without given any clear or definitive example.All she has been able to do so far is present speculations and suppositions as her evidence of the supernatural. Are you a theist because you believe that there is a supernatural realm that exist out there or are you a theist because you believe that the biblegod is that supernatural entity?

huxley2:


                                                                    How do you know that what you have observe does not obey a law(s) currently unknown to us?

Are we aware of ALL the possible FIELDS that envelops the universe of space-time?  Could these particle be influencing each other along such unknown fields?

Huxley, I have no doubt that there are loads of laws of the universe currently unknown to us.  That is not the issue.  The question is if these Laws can be considered Natural Laws or not.  

According to our definition of Nature if the phenomenon does not seem to rely on traversing space and time then it is NOT operating according to a Natural law.

If however you reject our definition of Nature and leave Nature open ended so that we can keep shifting the goalposts in order to fit in any phenomena that we might encounter then we need to be ready for one possibility.

That we will discover a spiritual reality and even God and find that it is ALL very NATURAL.  Spirits will be Natural to and there'll still be no such thing as the supernatural.


As regards your other issue.  I thought that physics recognised 4 forces of the universe.  Namely, gravity, electromagnetism, weak, and strong nuclear forces.  

These have their fields via which they pass influence onto other bodies.  

Higg's field is an attempt to study the qualities of the Vacuum (empty space).  I could be wrong but I don't think that there is any difference between communicating via the Higg's field and communicating across empty space.  
If two bodies separated in space communicate instantaneously then the communication couldn't have occurred across space.  Perhaps if we entertained the idea of a hyperspace, that is an extradimensional reality.  But that is exactly what you want to avoid Huxley because that opens up a whole can of worms that play into the hands of the supernaturalists.

pilgrim.1:

I'm sorry but your allegations are wrong. I've explained my premise, discussed at length, moved past the usual atheist repetitions, and lately called for such repetions to grow up and move on. How is it that I'm the one now making your "round and round in circles"? The boredom here is coming from atheists posts asking the same boring questions that are not heading anywhere and seeking to narrow everything down to the "-ism" of their naturalism. If in all possible worlds there is nothing that is beyond your naturalism, how do you explicate the occurences that are exemplified as actually beyond your naturalism? Is that an unfair question to ask those who make such narrow assumptions? If these examples fail your naturalism, how is that anyone's fault?

I am very sorry to say but you have done no such thing, I spent the entire evening yesterday reading the whole thread(Very interesting thread by the way) and you kept going round and round in a circle. You have been asking and presenting the same boring arguments over and over again only to turn around and say that the atheist are the one doing it. .

Tudur has told you so many times that the fact that there are so many things that we cant explain today or which we don't know now doesn't mean that we won't know or provided explanations for them in the future.

He gave you very good examples but you kept dismissing them.

toneyb:

Interesting, Pilgrim1 has been going round in circles trying to show that a supernatural realm exist without given any clear or definitive example.All she has been able to do so far is present speculations and suppositions as here evidence of the supernatural. Are you a theist because you believe that there is a supernatural realm that exist out there or are you a theist because you believe that the biblegod is that supernatural entity?

You typically arrived again at the fallacious logicum I already identified. It's really funny that the best shot you guys can give to the examples I already pointed to is this weak musings. What is your best shot for the fact that there are atheists that have first-hand experiences of the same thing that your narrow atheism rejects out-of-hand? This cheap interjections is the reason why I enjoy wasting your fallacy - because you really don't have a clue about your own worldview. Independent of the examples I already gave, can you tell me why there are atheists that believe in the supernatural?

toneyb:

I am very sorry to say but you have done no such thing, I spent the entire evening yesterday reading the whole thread(Very interesting thread by the way) and you kept going round and round in a circle. You have been asking and presenting the same boring arguments over and over again only to turn around and say that the atheist are the one doing it. .

I'm very sorry to say you didn't read through and are just making such a claim.

toneyb:
Tudur has told you so many times that the fact that there are so many things that we cant explain today or which we don't know now doesn't mean that we won't know or provided explanations for them in the future.

Perfect atheist excuse, sorry it does not work out his atheism. Everything he hopes to narrow down to his naturalism should also be able to explicate such events. It does not mean that they do not occur; but that within known natural laws, how does he explain and replicate them? The cry that "we don't yet know them" is a weak and self-defeating excuse.

toneyb:
He gave you very good examples but you kept dismissing them.

What "good examples"? This is why I like wasting your cheap assumptions. Where did Tùdor give me those examples that I have not answered? Arguments by demagoguery is the cause you champion, and it is the very same thing that weakens your position, you know.

Pastor AIO:

If however you reject our definition of Nature and leave Nature open ended so that we can keep shifting the goalposts in order to fit in any phenomena that we might encounter then we need to be ready for one possibility.

That we will discover a spiritual reality and even God and find that it is ALL very NATURAL. Spirits will be Natural to and there'll still be no such thing as the supernatural.

Good one. I shall bear this in mind. When such a time comes, it is not so much that they don't exist; but that the atheist has DENIED them repeatedly. That is the simple point. It is one thing to say that "there are no spirits, ghosts" etc; or that "there is NO God", and then later come back to say that God exists but is "natural".

Ah, yes.  I saw this one but skipped it because it made absolute no sense; not that all you other post which I address make sense, I hasten to add.  Ok, let's give it a go now;

@huxley2 (and any atheist who might be interested),

Let me outline what I mean by this 'elusive approach' (as one of my 'friends' called it). It's because I'm very interested in continuing this dialogue that I would once again attempt to make things simple.

1. The basic premise:
If you notice, the basic premise in my discussions funnels down to just one thing, which has well been captured in William_C's oft-repeated quote: to present some kind of "evidence that shows the existence of something beyond your world view''. As a necessary assumption therefore, I understand that 'naturalism' is the underlying principle in the atheism of many people. This is exemplified in wirinet's assertion earlier that: "the atheist assumes all things must of necessity be narrowed to his naturalistic worldview". That is the very thing I'm challenging by the various posts submitted so far.

We have been through this many times before.  Atheism is not contingent on Naturalism.  Example, I have got about 15 textbooks on my text right now and none of them discuss naturalism at all.


Naturalism is a philosophical position that gets is inspiration primarily from science and the scientific method  and is a relatively new worldview and by necessity post-dates science.

Atheism addresses the existence and belief in gods or deities.


Is is possible for one to be an atheist (usually a simple atheist) and also a supernaturalist as there is no contradiction in these positions.  It is really hard to get a sensible debate when you constantly and dishonestly mischaracterise these positions.  (This is called the straw-man fallacy, but we shall come to that later)

Atheism has existed probably since humans developed cognitive powers, BUT naturalism is only about 200 - 300 years old.  How the hell could say "'naturalism' is the underlying principle in the atheism of many people"?

Now, to acquit yourself, please address these questions:

1)  How old is atheistic philosophy

2)  What is modern naturalism and how old is it.  (note I added the adjective "modern" to stress the naturalism derived from modern science as opposed to other forms of naturalism)

It is hardly worth continuing if such elementary concepts pose you sucg difficulties.   I shall address the remainder of this post when I see your response to my questions above.

huxley2:

Ah, yes.  I saw this one but skipped it because it made absolute no sense; not that all you other post which I address make sense, I hasten to add.  Ok, let's give it a go now;

We have been through this many times before.  Atheism is not contingent on Naturalism.  Example, I have got about 15 textbooks on my text right now and none of them discuss naturalism at all.

If atheism is not contigent on naturalism, what is its contingency? Please just let me know that one, and then we can take it from there.

huxley2:

Naturalism is a philosophical position that gets is inspiration primarily from science and the scientific method  and is a relatively new worldview and by necessity post-dates science.

Please stay focused - we're done with that non-starter. Naturalism is a doctrine, and we've been through that in several other threads. The first time I pointed it out, you got riled up, remember?

huxley2:

Atheism addresses the existence and belief in gods or deities.

On what contingency, huxley2?

huxley2:

Is is possible for one to be an atheist (usually a simple atheist) and also a supernaturalist as there is no contradiction in these positions.  It is really hard to get a sensible debate when you constantly and dishonestly mischaracterise these positions.  (This is called the straw-man fallacy, but we shall come to that later)

That is YOUR strawman, not mine. You yourself admitted that there are atheists who believe in the supernatural (or the 'spiritual', if I'm wrong). The question is not that I confused them - I already noted that

       1. not all atheists have the same outlook on the world

       2. some atheists tend to believe in what 'strict atheism' rejects or denies

       3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

And the sort of atheism you espouse does not include the atheism of all atheists! That is the very reason why I drew from what atheists themselves have argued, rather than narrow my discussions to just your own simplistic assumptions. To ask that every atheist on board be viewed within the matrix of your own atheism is most disingenuous and cheap, because you'd then be making the same logical fallacy arguing away from what we know about other atheists' position.

huxley2:
Atheism has existed probably since humans developed cognitive powers, BUT naturalism is only about 200 - 300 years old.  How the hell could say "'naturalism' is the underlying principle in the atheism of many people"?

I could very well say so, because that is what MANY PEOPLE say when self-identified as atheists.  I gave you wirinet's example earlier to buttress this point, and if you have quarrels with that, then please address you ire accordingly towards wirinet. This is why again I said that many atheists do not have a clue what they're arguing.

huxley2:

Now, to acquit yourself, please address these questions:

1)  How old is atheistic philosophy

I don't know - I'm not an atheist. The age os atheism does not take away from the premise of what is being discussed. if it does, please show how.

huxley2:

2)  What is modern naturalism and how old is it.  (note I added the adjective "modern" to stress the naturalism derived from modern science as opposed to other forms of naturalism)

Atheism is NOT science; and whatever adjective you add to it or not does not take away from the basic premise. If your atheism is not contingent on naturalism, please tell us what it is contigent upon.

huxley2:

It is hardly worth continuing if such elementary concepts pose you sucg difficulties.   I shall address the remainder of this post when I see your response to my questions above.

You're not making any sese in yours either. How many times have others noted your needless roundabout-turns?

pilgrim.1:

You typically arrived again at the fallacious logicum I already identified. It's really funny that the best shot you guys can give to the examples I already pointed to is this weak musings. What is your best shot for the fact that there are atheists that have first-hand experiences of the same thing that your narrow atheism rejects out-of-hand? This cheap interjections is the reason why I enjoy wasting your fallacy - because you really don't have a clue about your own worldview. Independent of the examples I already gave, can you tell me why there are atheists that believe in the supernatural?

You are the one that is getting it all wrong. Atheism is simply lack of belief in god. Have I ever told you that I reject any of the examples that you gave such Telepathy? What do you mean that I really don't have a clue about my own world view?  . The supernatural to me are things that have no explanations for at present. The rainbow was once thought to be the direct act of the supernatural, just like lighting, earth quakes, volcanoes etc and so many atheist at that time despite not believing in any god/gods believed that those events were indeed supernatural events because they were yet to be understood and explained.

Some atheist believe in the supernatural because of their personal experiences and world view generally. The question is what really is the supernatural and how does it function. In what way does the supernatural interfere or interact with the natural? How do we know that it is the supernatural and can you give me an empirical example to the supernatural at work? Because atheist believe in the supernatural doesn't make it any true, Muslims believe in Allah does that mean that Allah is true?

Would we say Lucretius was a Naturalist?

toneyb:

You are the one that is getting it all wrong. Atheism is simply lack of belief in god. Have I ever told you that I reject any of the examples that you gave such Telepathy? What do you mean that I really don't have a clue about my own world view? . The supernatural to me are things that have no explanations for at present. The rainbow was once thought to be the direct act of the supernatural, just like lighting, earth quakes, volcanoes etc and so many atheist at that time despite not believing in any god/gods believed that those events were indeed supernatural events because they were yet to be understood and explained.

You still have no clue, toneyb. . and this is why I very well doubt you ever took the time to read through this thread. I drew from what atheists themselves have affirmed, not from what they have not affirmed. At least, for you the supernatural are things that do not have explanations at present - but that is a very different thing from someone denying their existence out of hand. Most people's atheism rejects ALL things supernatural, and I drew from the point of reference that many atheists are beginning to shift from such a hollow denial to an affirmation that such phenomena exist! The question is: what is the position of those who deny their existence? This is where you're confusing issues for yourself if you can't see that the things I'm mentioning are from the atheists themselves. If you read confused, perhaps those atheists are indeed confused.

toneyb:
Some atheist believe in the supernatural because of their personal experiences and world view generally. The question is what really is the supernatural and how does it function. In what way does the supernatural interfere or interact with the natural? How do we know that it is the supernatural and can you give me an empirical example to the supernatural at work? Because atheist believe in the supernatural doesn't make it any true, Muslims believe in Allah does that mean that Allah is true?

Still more confused thinking. What you're trying so hard to dismiss is that since you haven't experienced something for yourself, then it cannot be true or does not exist. Which makes one wonder: could it be said that the atheists which have experienced such things for themselves are saying things which are not true? On the other hand, if these atheists can be taken seriously by other atheists, would it not make more sense to seek to understand the nature of such phenomena rather than dismissing them on the basis that you do not understand their nature? Does your lack of understanding their nature therefore mean that they do not exists or can be dismissed summarily on tenuous assumptions?

Pastor AIO:

Would we say Lucretius was a Naturalist?

Oh yes, that is how he described himself and on current evidence he turns out to be right, in my opinion.

The major difference between Lucretius and a modern-day Naturalist is the standard of justification of the naturalist position.  Lecretius did not have the epistemic tools to justify his position as much as a modern-day naturalist has.

Lecretius and the other Epicurean belonged to the school of thought called Atomists - essentially these people believed that there were entities called atoms. Obviously, they lacked the tools to justify their position.

Note that holding a position is not a big deal - the big deal is actually justifying that position.

So Lucretius position was speculative, based on what he had observed, but he lasked the tools for justifying it.  To distinguish the Lucretius type of Naturalism from the Naturalism founded on modern science, I used the adjective "modern".   Modern naturalism is justified by science.  

Of course, that does not mean that Modern Naturalism is ultimately correct.  It simply means that, being contingent on science, we have not yet seen a contravention of its tenets.

Well done Pastor.  Am glad you know about Lucretius.  How about Democritus?  Check him out.

pilgrim.1:

You still have no clue, toneyb. .  and this is why I very well doubt you ever took the time to read through this thread. I drew from what atheists themselves have affirmed, not from what they have not affirmed. At least, for you the supernatural are things that do not have explanations at present - but that is a very different thing from someone denying their existence out of hand. Most people's atheism rejects ALL things supernatural, and I drew from the point of reference that many atheists are beginning to shift from such a hollow denial to an affirmation that such phenomena exist! The question is: what is the position of those who deny their existence? This is where you're confusing issues for yourself if you can't see that the things I'm mentioning are from the atheists themselves. If you read confused, perhaps those atheists are indeed confused.

OK, fair enough I understand the point you are trying to make. 

Still more confused thinking. What you're trying so hard to dismiss is that since you haven't experienced something for yourself, then it cannot be true or does not exist. Which makes one wonder: could it be said that the atheists which have experienced such things for themselves are saying things which are not true? On the other hand, if these atheists can be taken seriously by other atheists, would it not make more sense to seek to understand the nature of such phenomena rather than dismissing them on the basis that you do not understand their nature? Does your lack of understanding their nature therefore mean that they do not exists or can be dismissed summarily on tenuous assumptions?

Where did I say that? I am not dismissing their claims, I never did. I said that these are phenomena that need to be explored and studied deeply so that they could be understood and explained like every other occurrence that was once thought to be a supernatural event has like rainbow, earth quake, lighting, diseases and volcanoes. _{Why do you like running away from questions pilgrim 1}. You are a very Interesting person I must say.