What is Nature?

[Quid est Veritas?]

An important distinction that needs to be drawn, is between Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata.

The former references active Nature, its ongoing generative quality, and in this sense, it is the 'unmodified' that @Occams Barber mentioned. It is the nature of a grasshopper to hop, or beget grasshoppers. It is the ongoing acts of Nature as personification of this. Natura Naturata, is passive nature, that which follows of necessity - water will flow from higher to lower, a rock will be hard. If you assume determinism, you can even conflate the two.

Ultimately, Nature is from what is born, Latin Nascere, or very apt for Christmas - dies Natalis. It is the inborn quality of something.
At heart, the nature of something is its 'kind' or the qualities it possesses. It is what is inborn or follows from it (Naturata), or what it does (Naturans). Nature capitalised is merely an example of metonymy or personification, meaning either all existence apart from or including man (Naturata); or used to excuse Will in the world, or ignore the Formal Cause by assuming Naturans in all things.

CS Lewis said that the concept Nature today occupies a strange borderline position, as more than a Personification but less than a Myth, and ready to be either or both as the stress of the argument demands.

So with this argument of Supernatural: If you assume Natura Naturata, we get miracles and the like under this term, providing their origin is not assumed to be within Nature itself, or of necessity following from the Nature of God (Spinoza). But something guiding Nature, would also be Supernatural in the naturans sense, even without overt 'Supernatural events', such as with ideas like Intelligent Design. So if we discover something unheard of, such as ESP say, that suddenly becomes natural - unless we assume Will therein, which is why acts of man are 'unnatural' or manmade. If we create elements artificially that don't exist in 'Nature', even for a second, they are unnatural, though their potential existence would not be.

Largely our infatuation with Nature is the child of the Romantics, who lionised it; and the mechanical metaphors we have adopted to describe the world have made us equate form and function. Natural does not mean desirable nor acceptable, as nothing is more natural than dying of disease. Nor is Nature a synonym for some holistic whole, without sneaking in significant metaphysical assumptions.

 

[muichimotsu]

An important distinction that needs to be drawn, is between Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata.

The former references active Nature, its ongoing generative quality, and in this sense, it is the 'unmodified' that @Occams Barber mentioned. It is the nature of a grasshopper to hop, or beget grasshoppers. It is the ongoing acts of Nature as personification of this. Natura Naturata, is passive nature, that which follows of necessity - water will flow from higher to lower, a rock will be hard. If you assume determinism, you can even conflate the two.

Ultimately, Nature is from what is born, Latin Nascere, or very apt for Christmas - dies Natalis. It is the inborn quality of something.
At heart, the nature of something is its 'kind' or the qualities it possesses. It is what is inborn or follows from it (Naturata), or what it does (Naturans). Nature capitalised is merely an example of metonymy or personification, meaning either all existence apart from or including man (Naturata); or used to excuse Will in the world, or ignore the Formal Cause by assuming Naturans in all things.

CS Lewis said that the concept Nature today occupies a strange borderline position, as more than a Personification but less than a Myth, and ready to be either or both as the stress of the argument demands.

So with this argument of Supernatural: If you assume Natura Naturata, we get miracles and the like under this term, providing their origin is not assumed to be within Nature itself, or of necessity following from the Nature of God (Spinoza). But something guiding Nature, would also be Supernatural in the naturans sense, even without overt 'Supernatural events', such as with ideas like Intelligent Design. So if we discover something unheard of, such as ESP say, that suddenly becomes natural - unless we assume Will therein, which is why acts of man are 'unnatural' or manmade. If we create elements artificially that don't exist in 'Nature', even for a second, they are unnatural, though their potential existence would not be.

Largely our infatuation with Nature is the child of the Romantics, who lionised it; and the mechanical metaphors we have adopted to describe the world have made us equate form and function. Natural does not mean desirable nor acceptable, as nothing is more natural than dying of disease. Nor is Nature a synonym for some holistic whole, without sneaking in significant metaphysical assumptions.

Outside of nature in any sense becomes incoherent unless you're trying to describe something like DC Comics vibrational frequencies (which I don't think indicate how the different dimensions that parallel to supernatural realms work). Which gets into the difference of supernatural versus paranormal. I'd sooner believe in paranormal stuff at least as regards being plausible, because it generally is described to be preternatural and thus not outside of nature, just a more mysterious aspect of it we don't understand (like...Highlanders, if you don't consider the alien origin in Highlander 2)

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Outside of nature in any sense becomes incoherent unless you're trying to describe something like DC Comics vibrational frequencies (which I don't think indicate how the different dimensions that parallel to supernatural realms work). Which gets into the difference of supernatural versus paranormal. I'd sooner believe in paranormal stuff at least as regards being plausible, because it generally is described to be preternatural and thus not outside of nature, just a more mysterious aspect of it we don't understand (like...Highlanders, if you don't consider the alien origin in Highlander 2)

In what way is it incoherent, unless you are merely equating Nature with 'what exists'; or which presuppositions are you imputing onto the term? In a way, much that humans do is already outside nature, as only the potentiality was perhaps there - of course, providing you aren't a Determinist. This is why I tried to introduce the Naturans/Naturata distinction from the pre-Baconians, because treating Nature as if merely personifying matter more than anything else, confuses more than illustrates. Something outside the Natural need not be another realm or even spiritual, as long as it is not fully derivitive from the attributes of the substance in question.

Unfortunately of all that comics mumbo-jumbo I know not an iota, so your allusion went over my head.

 

[muichimotsu]

In what way is it incoherent, unless you are merely equating Nature with 'what exists'; or which presuppositions are you imputing onto the term? In a way, much that humans do is already outside nature, as only the potentiality was perhaps there - of course, providing you aren't a Determinist. This is why I tried to introduce the Naturans/Naturata distinction from the pre-Baconians, because treating Nature as if merely personifying matter more than anything else, confuses more than illustrates. Something outside the Natural need not be another realm or even spiritual, as long as it is not fully derivitive from the attributes of the substance in question.

Unfortunately of all that comics mumbo-jumbo I know not an iota, so your allusion went over my head.

Nature is what we can observe consistently, even if we have to acknowledge variations based on scale (Gravity is a great example of natural laws that will be consistent, but have underlying principles that mean it will differ on earth versus the moon versus Mars, etc)

Outside nature in what sense? If we talking more abstract notions like the self and consciousness, they're emergent properties, and the concepts of ethics, etc, are further emergent from that. But that's not what we're talking about with nature, abstractions are the realm of philosophy much moreso than nature, which is arguably a combination of epistemology and metaphysics, ideally with a scientific consideration of falsifiability in the principles

Determinism is not equal to fatalism, the universe having particular consistent properties and things happening necessarily based on those laws does not preclude a stochastic manifestation of them.

What you describe as the distinction is basically biology and physics, life science and natural sciences more broadly covering everything else. That is an interesting nuance to bring up, but it doesn't really address the metaphysical aspects of nature in what it consists of, only how we can nuance it into particular categories, the same way we'd nuance abstract concepts into metaphysics, logic, ethics, etc, even if ontologically, they're all immaterial and emergent from the material biological function of our brains

Are you saying nature, in your assessment, is so vague that the idea of miracles could just be fit into the understanding rather than being seen as a general violation of the rules in every conceivable manner? Something being miraculous does not equal to a miracle in that it would utterly violate consistent laws. If I die and come back to life that is not a miracle if there is a reasoned and natural explanation that doesn't require invoking violations of natural principles in general.

Or you appear to be suggesting beyond nature is a different substance; in which case how can you demonstrate its existence or even remotely test or measure it in any conceivable fashion? If there was some property as such being supernatural, it would be consistent enough to have some assessment of it in a model rather than just going on intuition, which leads to speculation and fragmented understanding

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Nature is what we can observe consistently, even if we have to acknowledge variations based on scale (Gravity is a great example of natural laws that will be consistent, but have underlying principles that mean it will differ on earth versus the moon versus Mars, etc)

Gravity cannot be observed. We observe weight, mass and acceleration; and infer a force we term gravity. So therefore your definition of Nature includes inference, if Gravity is an example thereof, and thus presupposes the framework within which such an inference was drawn.

Outside nature in what sense? If we talking more abstract notions like the self and consciousness, they're emergent properties, and the concepts of ethics, etc, are further emergent from that. But that's not what we're talking about with nature, abstractions are the realm of philosophy much moreso than nature, which is arguably a combination of epistemology and metaphysics, ideally with a scientific consideration of falsifiability in the principles

I disagree the Self or Consciousness are 'emergent properties' necessarily. Emergent property usually just means I have assigned a priori from which something arises, that I can't prove or demonstrate. All our experience and perception is of necessity via Consciousness, so is integral to a concept of Nature. To categorise something as Natural, required conscious evaluation thereof.

How you can decide Nature a 'combination of epistemology with metaphysics with some scientific falsifiability' is beyond me, while excluding abstractions drawn. After all, Nature itself is an abstraction; falsifiability is an abstract concept; that one apple and another apple are both of kind, is via an assumed Universal they share, which is again an abstraction; etc. This seems very muddled to me.

Determinism is not equal to fatalism, the universe having particular consistent properties and things happening necessarily based on those laws does not preclude a stochastic manifestation of them.

This is the old Epicurian argument of the 'divergence of the atoms' to maintain free will. Alas, this doesn't save the situation, as either it remains determinable on larger scale of probability, or the stochastic distrubution might ultimately be false once all factors are taken into account. The argument can be made pragmatically on an indeterminate basis; but if you assume only matter exists, and it acts in consistent ways, Determinism tends there. Else, if there isn't a fundamental consistency, then the basis of uniformitarianism and scientific method collapses.

What you describe as the distinction is basically biology and physics, life science and natural sciences more broadly covering everything else. That is an interesting nuance to bring up, but it doesn't really address the metaphysical aspects of nature in what it consists of, only how we can nuance it into particular categories, the same way we'd nuance abstract concepts into metaphysics, logic, ethics, etc, even if ontologically, they're all immaterial and emergent from the material biological function of our brains

Are you saying nature, in your assessment, is so vague that the idea of miracles could just be fit into the understanding rather than being seen as a general violation of the rules in every conceivable manner? Something being miraculous does not equal to a miracle in that it would utterly violate consistent laws. If I die and come back to life that is not a miracle if there is a reasoned and natural explanation that doesn't require invoking violations of natural principles in general.

Nature is used in a very inconsistent sense in the modern world. I feel the differentiation is imperative to understanding, or else people conflate what something fundamentally is, with what it does.

Miracles cannot be acknowledged to exist, unless your frame of reference allows for them. There is always a way to excuse them, for even the most ridiculous of explanations can be judged more probable if you exclude the possibility of the miraculous beforehand. As long as you think no violation of 'natural principles' occurs, then when a violation of such as currently conceived is observed, a mechanism can be sought to account for it. After all though, if they are violated, after the fact Nature would need to account for the change, so such a violation is probably not really retrograde observable as such.

Or you appear to be suggesting beyond nature is a different substance; in which case how can you demonstrate its existence or even remotely test or measure it in any conceivable fashion? If there was some property as such being supernatural, it would be consistent enough to have some assessment of it in a model rather than just going on intuition, which leads to speculation and fragmented understanding

I am not suggesting 'beyond Nature' is a different 'substance'. I see no reason why it even need be a substance we recognise as such. Assuming constant demonstrability or measurement as a necessity seems facile. That is poisoning the wells, by presupposing the argument you are seeking to prove if you reject supernaturalism. If empiric observation could be applied consistently, then the subject is beholden to material or so principles, which precludes it being beyond 'Nature' as per your proffered definition. No, as per my attempt to differentiate Natura Naturans and Naturata, a factor by which Naturans is violated, would fall beyond Nature even if observable. This is in fact what we readily do, when we term something natural as opposed to manmade or synthetic. It is only by eliding the possible, with the natural, that Naturata can be applied to things contingent upon human actions.

 

[dlamberth]

All our experience and perception is of necessity via Consciousness, so is integral to a concept of Nature. To categorise something as Natural, required conscious evaluation thereof.

I'm glad that you brought this up. An important aspect of Nature is Consciousness. We can see it in Human Beings because we are every bit part of Nature. All of the critters in Nature has some sort of Consciousness based on it's life form.

 

[muichimotsu]

Gravity cannot be observed. We observe weight, mass and acceleration; and infer a force we term gravity. So therefore your definition of Nature includes inference, if Gravity is an example thereof, and thus presupposes the framework within which such an inference was drawn.



I disagree the Self or Consciousness are 'emergent properties' necessarily. Emergent property usually just means I have assigned a priori from which something arises, that I can't prove or demonstrate. All our experience and perception is of necessity via Consciousness, so is integral to a concept of Nature. To categorise something as Natural, required conscious evaluation thereof.

How you can decide Nature a 'combination of epistemology with metaphysics with some scientific falsifiability' is beyond me, while excluding abstractions drawn. After all, Nature itself is an abstraction; falsifiability is an abstract concept; that one apple and another apple are both of kind, is via an assumed Universal they share, which is again an abstraction; etc. This seems very muddled to me.


This is the old Epicurian argument of the 'divergence of the atoms' to maintain free will. Alas, this doesn't save the situation, as either it remains determinable on larger scale of probability, or the stochastic distrubution might ultimately be false once all factors are taken into account. The argument can be made pragmatically on an indeterminate basis; but if you assume only matter exists, and it acts in consistent ways, Determinism tends there. Else, if there isn't a fundamental consistency, then the basis of uniformitarianism and scientific method collapses.


Nature is used in a very inconsistent sense in the modern world. I feel the differentiation is imperative to understanding, or else people conflate what something fundamentally is, with what it does.

Miracles cannot be acknowledged to exist, unless your frame of reference allows for them. There is always a way to excuse them, for even the most ridiculous of explanations can be judged more probable if you exclude the possibility of the miraculous beforehand. As long as you think no violation of 'natural principles' occurs, then when a violation of such as currently conceived is observed, a mechanism can be sought to account for it. After all though, if they are violated, after the fact Nature would need to account for the change, so such a violation is probably not really retrograde observable as such.


I am not suggesting 'beyond Nature' is a different 'substance'. I see no reason why it even need be a substance we recognise as such. Assuming constant demonstrability or measurement as a necessity seems facile. That is poisoning the wells, by presupposing the argument you are seeking to prove if you reject supernaturalism. If empiric observation could be applied consistently, then the subject is beholden to material or so principles, which precludes it being beyond 'Nature' as per your proffered definition. No, as per my attempt to differentiate Natura Naturans and Naturata, a factor by which Naturans is violated, would fall beyond Nature even if observable. This is in fact what we readily do, when we term something natural as opposed to manmade or synthetic. It is only by eliding the possible, with the natural, that Naturata can be applied to things contingent upon human actions.

That's like saying we can't observe the air, gravity is a property of nature in terms of the interrelated forces you describe, it's not less observable because of it fitting into a scientific theory, it's actually MORE valid because of how scientific theories require more rigor

~~~~

I'm talking about nature as YOU described it in terms of the categorizations we use to investigate it, not nature in ITSELF, you're vastly misunderstanding how I presented it. Nature in itself would still be descriptive based on, arguably, purely material terms


~~~`
The emergent properties are from a demonstrable fact we can observe, brain states and general functions of that organ that result in various aspects of consciousness and self, something we perceive after the fact and assume axiomatically because we have no other perspective besides our own initially in the first place


~~~~
A fundamental consistency of material behavior does not in any way throw out or exclude a stochastic manifestation, otherwise we'd predict the weather with more certainty rather than it still varying outside of predictions. Our self and consciousness could easily work on a similar, but distinct principle of the brain chemistry, etc. You've still failed to demonstrate how determinism necessitates anything like the fatalism you're inferring from it in terms of free will

~~~

The essence and behavior or accident are interrelated, but one can argue essence presides existence in some notion. Nature is not prescriptive, it's descriptive, any new observations we gain to better understand something that initially seems miraculous is not a post hoc rationalization as you seem to imply, but a more precise qualification based on science's provisional nature in the first place.

The question becomes why you should allow miracles to exist when they can be used to excuse thinking further about something and just chalk it up to what amounts to a partly indeterminate universe where the rules can just stop working, even for an instant.

~~~

It's not a necessity, it's the best method to seek out truth in terms of it not being based on personal credulity, but objective consideration of the evidence. And you're thinking of a tautology, not well poisoning, that's specifically trying to discredit with adverse information regarding a source (like bringing up Muslims killing people to suggest that Islam just endorses killing wholesale or similar accusations one might hear)

~~~~

We term something natural versus synthetic when we can observe the former as happening without human intervention while the latter necessarily requires human involvement to occur (houses, etc). Your distinction was nature in the mechanical sense versus the organic sense, if I'm roughly simplifying the slightly verbose Latin.

I don't disagree with that in principle, but you're stretching from the possibility to some compelling reason to believe in something we cannot remotely consider apart from invoking faith to make it "sensible" rather than generally incoherent. Or are you going to equally find magic compelling as one might describe it in a philosophical sense that could fit into "nature" but also be "supernatural"?

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm glad that you brought this up. An important aspect of Nature is Consciousness. We can see it in Human Beings because we are every bit part of Nature. All of the critters in Nature has some sort of Consciousness based on it's life form.

Not sure where anyone got the notion I didn't consider consciousness as part of Nature, but it's more emergent, even if it necessarily is required to appropriate Nature itself as a concept for observation and study

 

[dlamberth]

Not sure where anyone got the notion I didn't consider consciousness as part of Nature, but it's more emergent, even if it necessarily is required to appropriate Nature itself as a concept for observation and study

I read your words and just thought I'd add what popped up in me. Sorry if it came across as something not considered.

I know this is off track a bit, but it's my belief that what's evolving in this Universe is Consciousness. And Nature is the medium for that to happen. Nature is also to be experienced as has been the case for most of Human time. I think there's a lot a to learned from the Indigenous people in that way.

 

[muichimotsu]

I read your words and just thought I'd add what popped up in me. Sorry if it came across as something not considered.

I know this is off track a bit, but it's my belief that what's evolving in this Universe is Consciousness. And Nature is the medium for that to happen. Nature is also to be experienced as has been the case for most of Human time. I think there's a lot a to learned from the Indigenous people in that way.

Of course we experience Nature, we're necessarily experiential beings in terms of initial epistemological approach. The question becomes what you mean by consciousness evolving? The word can be interpreted in a handful of ways, each differing greatly in the implications and constraints. Will we just eventually transcend our bodies ala some aliens in Star Trek (I think?)

 

[dlamberth]

Of course we experience Nature, we're necessarily experiential beings in terms of initial epistemological approach. The question becomes what you mean by consciousness evolving? The word can be interpreted in a handful of ways, each differing greatly in the implications and constraints. Will we just eventually transcend our bodies ala some aliens in Star Trek (I think?)

I have no idea where it's heading. Right now, looking around at Nature, there's a lot of different kinds of Consciousness being experienced. Maybe the Universe itself has Consciousness. There's infinite possibilities.

 

[muichimotsu]

I mean, that's nice-sounding, but seems to lend itself too much to speculation rather than some constraints on something being more than just plausible. It'd be cool if there was some secret knowledge or experience in cat consciousness, for instance, but...evidence doesn't lend itself to that conclusion

 

[Resha Caner]

That's like saying we can't observe the air, gravity is a property of nature in terms of the interrelated forces you describe, it's not less observable because of it fitting into a scientific theory, it's actually MORE valid because of how scientific theories require more rigor.

No. Air and gravity are quite different. Air is a thing. Gravity is a property of things - even more so an abstract model of how things move relative to each other. I can't observe gravity without the things it acts upon.

Such things are easily tested with thought experiments. Can you imagine air existing in the absence of all else? I can. Can you imagine gravity existing in the absence of all else? I cannot. For example, I can imagine air on earth, but not on the moon. I can't imagine gravity acting on earth but not the moon.

 

[muichimotsu]

No. Air and gravity are quite different. Air is a thing. Gravity is a property of things - even more so an abstract model of how things move relative to each other. I can't observe gravity without the things it acts upon.

Such things are easily tested with thought experiments. Can you imagine air existing in the absence of all else? I can. Can you imagine gravity existing in the absence of all else? I cannot. For example, I can imagine air on earth, but not on the moon. I can't imagine gravity acting on earth but not the moon.

The property is the best explanation, the point remains that nature is not always something so reductionist, it's holistic in the properties all fitting into a particular model that's reliable

Imagination is not indicative of reality, we can have thoroughly contradictory imagined ideas, that suggests nothing about what can be demonstrated. Air in the absence of anything else seems impossible because it'd sound much more like a vacuum. If gravity is a force, it's on the level of subatomic particles, but not having a tangible aspect doesn't negate it existing in that sense we can still observe consistently. Sure, it's a property of mass of objects and thus it wouldn't exist apart from that, in which case, it becomes a question of either scale or ontology itself in terms of nature

Why couldn't the moon have an atmosphere we create? It's not there now, but it's not impossible

 

[Resha Caner]

... the point remains that nature is not always something so reductionist, it's holistic in the properties all fitting into a particular model that's reliable ...

That's fine. I've only wanted to establish 2 ground rules from this discussion:
1) If you're going to leave me to define things you don't believe (such as "divine") then you need to go all in and leave me to define it. Don't object to my definition. Don't add to it. Don't subtract from it.

If you want to point out some internal inconsistency in the definition, that's fair game. My hope, though, is that such is only a step on the journey to understanding each other, not defeating and burying each other.

2) Likewise for words you're going to claim (such as "nature"). If you want to claim such words, I really don't care. My intention is only to do the same for you as I requested you do for me in #1. My intention is to understand you.

What you need to realize, though, is that how you define "nature" may mean you're including some or all of my understanding of and experiences with God in your definition. You cannot both claim a definition of "nature" that inadvertently or otherwise includes some of that understanding/experience and then insist my understanding/experience falls outside in some imaginary unproven la la land.

You can't, for example, claim your definition of "people" includes short men dressed in green who wear shamrocks and hide pots of gold, and then say leprechauns don't exist when I define them as short men dressed in green who wear shamrocks and hide pots of gold. You can't say, "Nope, those aren't leprechauns, those are people." That's a mere definitional distinction. If we both agree that short men dressed in green who wear shamrocks and hide pots of gold exist, and you've conceded to me the right to define leprechauns, then leprechauns exist.

What I agree to is that I won't use that to sneak in magic. If my definition of leprechauns doesn't stipulate magic, then I understand you've not accepted the existence of magic, regardless of whether you agree to the existence of short men dressed in green who wear shamrocks and hide pots of gold.

 

[muichimotsu]

That's fine. I've only wanted to establish 2 ground rules from this discussion:
1) If you're going to leave me to define things you don't believe (such as "divine") then you need to go all in and leave me to define it. Don't object to my definition. Don't add to it. Don't subtract from it.





If you want to point out some internal inconsistency in the definition, that's fair game. My hope, though, is that such is only a step on the journey to understanding each other, not defeating and burying each other.

2) Likewise for words you're going to claim (such as "nature"). If you want to claim such words, I really don't care. My intention is only to do the same for you as I requested you do for me in #1. My intention is to understand you.
What you need to realize, though, is that how you define "nature" may mean you're including some or all of my understanding of and experiences with God in your definition. You cannot both claim a definition of "nature" that inadvertently or otherwise includes some of that understanding/experience and then insist my understanding/experience falls outside in some imaginary unproven la la land.

You can't, for example, claim your definition of "people" includes short men dressed in green who wear shamrocks and hide pots of gold, and then say leprechauns don't exist when I define them as short men dressed in green who wear shamrocks and hide pots of gold. You can't say, "Nope, those aren't leprechauns, those are people." That's a mere definitional distinction. If we both agree that short men dressed in green who wear shamrocks and hide pots of gold exist, and you've conceded to me the right to define leprechauns, then leprechauns exist.

What I agree to is that I won't use that to sneak in magic. If my definition of leprechauns doesn't stipulate magic, then I understand you've not accepted the existence of magic, regardless of whether you agree to the existence of short men dressed in green who wear shamrocks and hide pots of gold.

By all means, define your entity, but don't expect me to NOT criticize inconsistencies I observe in it. I'm not about victory, because I'm not absolutely certain, my beliefs are not based in conviction and sentiment as the primary, but not sole, aspect of justifying them.

~~~

If your definition of nature is such that you can fit God in, that doesn't make it more compelling overall, it makes it convenient so you don't have to be more restrictive in what is conclusive and demonstrable, but merely what is plausible and internally consistent.

~~~

When your definition seems to be a transcendent entity and not immanent, that's the difference you're presenting in how your God doesn't fit into nature that could, conceivably include something like fairies, or even aliens.

~~~~

Pretty sure leprechauns are more complicated than those 3 traits you give it, which could just be some insane person. They can do magic. We don't agree on the definition you put forward, that's the problem, you're assuming that's the case because that's a convenient definition to not seem inconsistent or making special pleading.


So how is your definition of nature not something that tries to slip in the supernatural as something that pervades it in regards to the actions of an interventionist deity? The leprechaun parallel doesn't work, because people don't tend to define leprechauns just by superficial traits, but by particular things (being hurt by wrought iron, being able to magically repair shoes or other such supernatural feats). God is generally defined in such a way that you can't really demonstrate it doesn't exist because it requires having knowledge we could never possess and thus becomes unfalfisiable and might as well not exist anyway, like Carl Sagan's dragon in the garage.

 

[Resha Caner]

By all means, define your entity, but don't expect me to NOT criticize inconsistencies I observe in it.

As I said, that's fair. Hopefully you realize, though, that unless we frame this with some formal propositional logic, we may continue to argue about what is and isn't consistent.

I'm not about victory …

Good. Neither am I.

Pretty sure leprechauns are more complicated than those 3 traits you give it, which could just be some insane person. They can do magic. We don't agree on the definition you put forward, that's the problem, you're assuming that's the case because that's a convenient definition to not seem inconsistent or making special pleading.

Now, now. If you're going to claim "leprechaun", then you can define it. Once you define it, I will tell you whether or not I've met one. Per the traits you've added, I've never met a leprechaun.

But if you're going to let me define it, you have to let me do it, all in all.

So how is your definition of nature not something that tries to slip in the supernatural as something that pervades it in regards to the actions of an interventionist deity?

I tend not to use words like "nature" (or "natural"). Likewise, I don't use the term "supernatural". I don't like them because of all the baggage they seem to bring that people refuse to acknowledge. I do, for the most part, understand the context of those words when other people use them. When a baker tells me his bread is all natural, I don't launch into a tirade about the vagaries of the word. I'm pretty sure I know what he means. Other than that … meh.

There's a lot of ground to cover here, and I'm not sure where to start. I suppose I could offer Luther's definition of a god … not THE GOD, but simply a god. Luther said a god is that from which we expect all good, and to which we can turn in all distress.

Do you plan to share any of your views, or is this going to be all about mine?

 

[muichimotsu]

As I said, that's fair. Hopefully you realize, though, that unless we frame this with some formal propositional logic, we may continue to argue about what is and isn't consistent.



Good. Neither am I.



Now, now. If you're going to claim "leprechaun", then you can define it. Once you define it, I will tell you whether or not I've met one. Per the traits you've added, I've never met a leprechaun.

But if you're going to let me define it, you have to let me do it, all in all.



I tend not to use words like "nature" (or "natural"). Likewise, I don't use the term "supernatural". I don't like them because of all the baggage they seem to bring that people refuse to acknowledge. I do, for the most part, understand the context of those words when other people use them. When a baker tells me his bread is all natural, I don't launch into a tirade about the vagaries of the word. I'm pretty sure I know what he means. Other than that … meh.

There's a lot of ground to cover here, and I'm not sure where to start. I suppose I could offer Luther's definition of a god … not THE GOD, but simply a god. Luther said a god is that from which we expect all good, and to which we can turn in all distress.

Do you plan to share any of your views, or is this going to be all about mine?

The problem with defining leprechauns and God is that there isn't a remotely universal definition, it's based on individual perceptions and speculations, that's the fundamental problem with anything supernatural, it's fragmented because of our imaginations being able to twist things into any various ways we are convinced must be god, which is why I find the notions unconvincing in general, since it tends to rely on credulity, not skepticism in the slightest.
~~~~

I could define leprechauns based on a few variations in Warwick Davis' horror-comedy film series, but the point is still that neither of us believe in leprechauns for the same reason I also don't believe in yours or any other god. You see the line of thought here?

~~~~

The question then becomes what words do you use? Because I'm almost certain they're still going to be subjective and very much something that varies a great deal based on usage even in a general context of "supernatural" claims.

~~~

That definition of "god" seems such that it's used to claim atheists have a religion and it's science, but that's too easily construed to fit into anything we find authoritative and good rather than something that would have supernatural qualities to it (or whatever term you use that wouldn't fit into the regular world's functionality). I'd sooner define a leprechaun as a god in some sense with the variable powers it supposedly has, but to an ancient people, a scientifically knowledgeable person with capacity to use advanced technology would ALSO seem like a god in the possession of power and such. Expecting goodness and expecting authority can, unfortunately, be lumped together in terms of what one considers goodness to be, especially as relates to a monotheistic deity that counters the Euthypro dilemma

~~~~

What beliefs of mine do you want to know? Honestly, if I say I'm a naturalist, that's going to require unpacking that term, so you'd need to ask something more specific

 

[Resha Caner]

That definition of "god" seems such that it's used to claim atheists have a religion and it's science, but that's too easily construed to fit into anything we find authoritative and good rather than something that would have supernatural qualities to it (or whatever term you use that wouldn't fit into the regular world's functionality).

That's my definition (or, rather, the Lutheran definition). Take it or leave it. Per the rules I promised you, should you accept it, and since it does not mention the supernatural, I will not accuse you of accepting the supernatural. I have no desire to trap you in any way. It's my definition intended to explain my beliefs. I won't accuse atheists of having a religion. Are we good?

What beliefs of mine do you want to know? Honestly, if I say I'm a naturalist, that's going to require unpacking that term, so you'd need to ask something more specific

You can share whatever you feel is pertinent. However, if you're asking me, the question that intrigues me most about those who completely dismiss the spiritual is whether they accept any kind of Platonic Form, whatever that might be. If not, how do you explain the structure of reality? "Natural law" if you will?

 

[muichimotsu]

That's my definition (or, rather, the Lutheran definition). Take it or leave it. Per the rules I promised you, should you accept it, and since it does not mention the supernatural, I will not accuse you of accepting the supernatural. I have no desire to trap you in any way. It's my definition intended to explain my beliefs. I won't accuse atheists of having a religion. Are we good?



You can share whatever you feel is pertinent. However, if you're asking me, the question that intrigues me most about those who completely dismiss the spiritual is whether they accept any kind of Platonic Form, whatever that might be. If not, how do you explain the structure of reality? "Natural law" if you will?

Accepting what is effectively a convenient definition in a way that fits more broad concepts to render discussion on an equal framework of a particular preconception (everyone has a god, for example) is not my idea of rational, even if it isn't supernatural, but more a concept that's rooted in cognitive bias favoring appeal to authority rather than reason

The definition still seems to lend itself to a similar conclusion, even if it's not that atheists have a religion, per se. If I affirm particular concepts as having value in the sense that would align with the definition, then you'd say I'm affirming a "god" exists. With the specificity it has, I can't say I affirm any such god, because "all good" and "turning to in distress" seem to be separate aspects and not dependent on each other anyway, to say nothing of "all good" being overly idealistic and absolute perfection, practically (see my signature for detail)

Dismissing the spiritual in terms of being defined in supernatural/unfalsifiable/mystical terms is not the same as dismissing concepts that are used to describe the world. Platonic forms are universal concepts that apply to more specific manifestations (tree, etc), I don't see how that requires anything comparable to believing in a deity, soul, etc.

Reality's structure doesn't require the spiritual, it requires the conceptual, which you appear to be conflating and also emphasizing the immateriality as if that imbues some substance or such upon it rather than a general property based on our perception without it being relative, but subjective in that we are individual subjects approximating the first first before we reach consensus due to reason and falsification.