Which one is true and why do I feel that it’s naturalism ?
Goes like this:
Nature/Eternity (the what)
Action/Supernature (the how)
Quality (the why)
K?
Supernatural only makes sense with natural so that is the first error.
Second error is that if Nature didn’t create it self there must something above nature.
Third error is to confuse feelilng “I feel” with thinking.
Fourth error is to think something is important while concluding that something is nothing
1 Like
There’s a third thing ? Other than naturalism and supernaturalism.
Quality is the why observed in the capacity of objects/whats and motivating their actions/behaviors/hows… choices.
It’s not three as in tritheism (an aggregate of individuals)… no…
It’s three as in triunity.
1 Like
What reason do we have to believe that the supernatural is real? What facts necessitate the concept?
There are all sorts of isms. What is the category that you see naturalism and supernaturalism as the only options.
Also you could believe in what get called supernatural phenomena and consider them natural.
These aren’t really symmetrical categories, because naturalism is the belief that everything is natural, but of course, we don’t know what that means really yet. And supernaturalism does not mean that everything is supernatural. There are beliefs in a sense that would say that everything is supernatural, like you could have forms of Hinduism that would say everything is a part of God, you know, Brahma or Shiva or something. So I don’t, you know, I don’t really even know what the categories are here. I think it might be better to say something like, not using -isms, but it sounds like you might be saying, do you think we only have natural things or just are there also supernatural things? But the word supernatural is loaded because it implies that this is real, but it is beyond nature. Well, you can have that belief system and usually that’s some kind of dualism. But you can believe, as I said, in what gets called supernatural entities, but consider it natural. I mean, if it’s part of the nature of the universe, or even if it’s transcendent of the universe, but it’s part of what is considered real, why wouldn’t it be nature? If there’s a God, why is God not natural? Now, of course, the Abrahamic religions have a problem with that idea, but, you know, pagan, pantheistic, animistic things, they don’t have that dualism.
1 Like
Change.
Change is an abstraction that would be impossible if everything stayed the way it is.
Every improvement is supernatural.
Even every decay/breakdown is supernatural.
The natural subsumes the supernatural because it cannot be/express itself without it.
heh
1 Like
That’s what I am thinking it seems that the natural can be proven while the supernatural cannot.
I’m not asking about proof, but what makes the concept necessary? What is the cognitive need for it? We need the concept ‘nature’ so we can think and talk about the world we live in.
I know that the ‘supernatural’ can’t be proved because there’s no step of logic to get from the natural to a place that contradicts it.
Well, first A equals A. And then something changes and A isn’t quite the same anymore, but it’s still A…so what happened?
Not contradiction. Not completely.
The Nature that subsumes all changes some people consider the supernatural. Kant just calls it Nature. …because it’s reality, man.
1 Like