My Premise: There's nothing Natural

Supernatural is defined as: everything, or reality, or existence.

Natural, by extension, means, “outside of supernatural”, ie/ not included within supernatural.

The only thing outside of “everything” is “nothing”, and only thing outside of “reality” is “non-reality”, and only thing outside of “existence” is “non-existence”. So the natural is non-existent, non-reality, and nothing.

At first I thought this thread might have some kind of intriguing argument about the premise in the title.
Then I found out it was one of those “What if we change the definition?” threads.

Sure, if we change the definition then you’re completely right.
If we change the definition of God to mean “A PayLess Shoe Store,” then I have a God about a quarter mile away from my home.

You have an odd definition of supernatural. May I ask where you got that from?

I mean, If I define balogna as anything natural, I can rightly say that everything you we know about is balogna.

I made it up like people make up what natural means. All I have to do now is get others to accept it when we communicate with one another. And this way I just just showed that Natural does not exist.

Yeah, and FJ has a God about a quarter mile from his house.

Okay, he has something supernatural a quarter mile from his house. At least he can’t say that he doesn’t have something supernatural a quarter mile from his house. But he would look ridiculous if he said he had something natural a quarter mile from his house, since he would be saying that he has something non-existent about a quarter mile from his house, which makes no sense.

You have the definitions mixed up. Supernatural is: existing or occurring outside the normal experience of man. The normal experience refers to what is natural and natural laws. Even if you’re clever enough to modify the basic knowledge of things and create your own colorful thoughts, it doesn’t mean you are going to arrive at something extraordinary, or that it will be a guide to some truth.
… unless you are saying that natural means that you’re in a state of not knowing.

Normal experience isn’t what natural is. Natural is “non-existent”, “nothing”, and “non-real”. If you happen to think that normal experience is “non-existent”, “nothing”, or “non-real”, then you would have a point. But that is extremely strange to think that normal experience is of non-existent things, which is completely contradictory to experience.

Which man? For many indigeous groups, nature spirits were a normal experience. For some Abrahamics the felt presence of God is a normal experience.

I think there’s nothing supernatural. Everything is natural.

The meaning of the word natural has evolved over a long period of time. No one person wrote a 4 sentence note declaring it meant such and such. Good luck getting anyone to accept your definition. What’s the point of this?

Was this analytic or synthetic?

synthetic a priori

[size=50]not serious, but not sure if wrong either after a few minutes of thinking[/size]

You’re sure that’s what he meant, or this is what you believe?
I just saw the fine print, but I am not sure what that means. In any case, one could mean it either as synthetic a priori or as analytic.

Was what? Are you asking me to just state whether a sentence falls into one of those categories? To what extent are we considering context if so? If I’ve got what you’re asking, then I don’t really get what you’re asking. I know what analytic and synthetic mean, but not your question, but I could just be reading it wrong.

You could be saying - nothing like mind reading, angels, wood nymphs, gods, etc. exist - iow synthetic.
You could be saying, much like barcelonic in his thread - that given the definition of natural anything that exists is natural - iow analytic. IOW if ghosts or god exist, they are natural.

sorry Moreno, I meant it in jest, thinking after that it could actually be accurate. i’m lost like Smears, though, about why you asked him that. I thought maybe you weren’t serious either, but it seems like you are.

edit: I think I automatically took Smears to mean the latter.

When I say exist, I just mean, “can be referred to, and falls into the same kinds of sentences as things from which my idea of existence originally came”. I also say, “everything exists, even nothing” which kind of seem counterintuitive, until you realize that there are necessarily going to be ripples in the language if it’s describing things properly at all. I have to have a point of reference for everything, so I like to say everything exists. It’s kind of a way to just go ahead and stipulate the whole language problem, and just move on to understanding that there is more to getting things done philosophically than just finding semantic artifacts of the old universal/particular debate in each other’s sentences. Now about what exists…I think everything has to, but not all at the same time and in the same places, or even to the same degree. For instance, unicorns have to exist, because I refer to them but since I don’t see any around here, and all the evidence I have tells me I’m never gonna, I’ll say that at best, they exist some place and in some way where I will never see them, and since I can’t observe them, I can only really know certain things about them and then that’s worthless anyway because I’m never going to have to deal with them as best I can tell. So I move on. Then I go through all the shit like that that only exists in places where I cannot access with any empirical method, and I narrow down what I’ll call the “actual world” to the shit that I can observe and process through an empirical method.

You see what I’m saying? I want certainty man. Not some half assed statistical study about how it’s improbable that unicorns exist. Tell me with certainty that you’re not sure if unicorns are real because your method of knowing starts at observation and you haven’t seen one. Then you’re doing science man. Maximally specific shit and all.

About whether something is natural, is about the same as whether something exists. You can do it either way. In the end, I think “exist” works better than “natural” because to refer to something as being unnatural seems to be different than to try and refer to something that doesn’t exist. I wanna know how we refer without a referent.

It’s bad enough to invent some arbitrary definition of “natural” and “supernatural” and then use that in a philosophical argument. It’s worse when you switch between your customized definition and the ordinary conventional definition through the course of your argument. I can’t help but to suppose that when you conclude that “the natural is non-existent, non-reality, and nothing” you’re reverting back to the ordinary conventional definition of “natural” and thereby figure you’ve ingeniusly demonstrated that the natural is a myth.

So if someone suggested that your current perception is culture-based to a great degree and offered a long term form of training that would lead to empircal experience (pardon the redundancy) of ghosts, God, Mary, The Buddha, you past lives, out of body experiences, etc., you might consider doing this?

Sure, that would be a silly study.