How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[William]

You remain of the belief that my philosophical arguments (that work off of scientific and historical data) cannot give us truth, so there’d be no point in me explaining how we can know the supernatural exists and some characteristics of it.

As I might have pointed out earlier on, a Supernaturalist cannot provided any supporting examples of any supposed supernatural entity, unless one first agrees that any supposed supernatural entities exist.

The truth is, the Bible does not even claim God is supernatural.
But it does say God is light.
And God is love.
Those are natural things. There is no good sense or necessity to believe God exists in a supernatural realm.

[boatsnguitars]

Now you: explain what the Supernatural is.

You aren’t out of your logical fix yet, so there is no moving forward. Go into the scientific proof where philosophy was wrong about the logical fix you are in. I think science is extremely valuable, but it can’t be illogical. I’m open to being shown you aren’t in a logical fix, either with science or philosophy, alone or mixed together.

Until then, you remain of the belief that my philosophical arguments (that work off of scientific and historical data) cannot give us truth, so there’d be no point in me explaining how we can know the supernatural exists and some characteristics of it.

You're making this into something it isn't. I agree Philosophy can aid in musing about things. Logic also helps (which isn't philosophy). But science - using philosophy to establish ground rules - is the single most effective pathway to truth, as evidenced.

Personally, I think you've turned this into a ridiculous straw man. Both philosophers and scientists have been wrong. When we decide what is wrong and right, Science has been the preferred method to settle the dispute. It just has been.

I understand why you are trying to gaslight: you believe God walked the Earth in the form of Jesus, Jesus did miracles with supernatural power, died and rose, etc. All ridiculous according to our careful, robust, patient scientific discoveries of how Reality operates. You must undermine science and elevate your ideas and dreams to the same status as a well-tested material process. Otherwise, as Paul says, you are the most pathetic of all people.

[The Tanager]

You're making this into something it isn't. I agree Philosophy can aid in musing about things. Logic also helps (which isn't philosophy). But science - using philosophy to establish ground rules - is the single most effective pathway to truth, as evidenced.

Personally, I think you've turned this into a ridiculous straw man. Both philosophers and scientists have been wrong. When we decide what is wrong and right, Science has been the preferred method to settle the dispute. It just has been.

I understand why you are trying to gaslight: you believe God walked the Earth in the form of Jesus, Jesus did miracles with supernatural power, died and rose, etc. All ridiculous according to our careful, robust, patient scientific discoveries of how Reality operates. You must undermine science and elevate your ideas and dreams to the same status as a well-tested material process. Otherwise, as Paul says, you are the most pathetic of all people.

I’m sorry for misunderstanding you, then. So, you agree science isn’t the only pathway. I’ve stated that science, as the study of physical reality, cannot study the non-physical (which would include the supernatural I’m arguing for) by its very definition; it’s logically impossible. Do you agree? If not, why not?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #743]

I’m sorry for misunderstanding you, then. So, you agree science isn’t the only pathway. I’ve stated that science, as the study of physical reality, cannot study the non-physical (which would include the supernatural I’m arguing for) by its very definition; it’s logically impossible. Do you agree? If not, why not?

I had a brief discussion recently whereby a supernaturalist argued the same type of thing.
I think that if one is to "test the spirits" then science can be use to do so.
I pointed out that if one claims that spirits can be communicated with, then the data of communication becomes something which can be examined and something which can be examined is essentially done so through science.

The supernaturalist informed me that God no longer directly communicates with individuals but allows demons to deceive humans into thinking they are in communication with God.

I pointed out biblical passages attributed to Jesus, showing clearly that Jesus considers it possible for the individual to communicate directly with God

The response from the supernaturalist to that was that Jesus was talking directly to people with him at the time, rather than to us here in this future to that time.

Which means that the bottom line from this particular reasoning is that there is no way in which to receive data from God which can be scientifically evaluated because God is "Supernatural" and remains hidden from scientific probing, and any claims from anyone that they are in communion with God, are to be considered lies from demonic beings.

I pointed out that demonic beings are also classed as supernatural by supernaturalists - and if these beings do communicate with humans, data should be forthcoming and science can therefore be done.

However, because these demons are said to be liars, the data cannot be trusted - even if any such data did come through...

The overall conundrum this type of supernaturalist reasoning offers, ("just because science can't test it, doesn't mean to say that it doesn't exist"), has scientists dealing with said conundrum by evaluating the minds of supernaturalists and offering reasonable hypothesis to explain in natural terms, what is most likely really going on.

Even so, most supernaturalists cling to their supernatural conundrums with a diligence which goes beyond reasonable.

My follow-up question to the supernaturalist about their claim was "So are you saying that since Jesus said those things, the God changed the rules and decided that there would be no more direct interaction between him and individual humans?"

Since then, the only thing I have heard in reply is.

[boatsnguitars]

You're making this into something it isn't. I agree Philosophy can aid in musing about things. Logic also helps (which isn't philosophy). But science - using philosophy to establish ground rules - is the single most effective pathway to truth, as evidenced.

Personally, I think you've turned this into a ridiculous straw man. Both philosophers and scientists have been wrong. When we decide what is wrong and right, Science has been the preferred method to settle the dispute. It just has been.

I understand why you are trying to gaslight: you believe God walked the Earth in the form of Jesus, Jesus did miracles with supernatural power, died and rose, etc. All ridiculous according to our careful, robust, patient scientific discoveries of how Reality operates. You must undermine science and elevate your ideas and dreams to the same status as a well-tested material process. Otherwise, as Paul says, you are the most pathetic of all people.

I’m sorry for misunderstanding you, then. So, you agree science isn’t the only pathway.

No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that Philosophy, Logic and Science - combined - is the only pathway. Science is critical. Your example of Einstein is perfect. There were a lot of 'philosophies' about the nature of reality, but science was able to weed out the bad ideas. Ideas are great, and we need them to move forward, but all the philosophizing in the world isn't going to change what is materially real about reality.

I’ve stated that science, as the study of physical reality, cannot study the non-physical (which would include the supernatural I’m arguing for) by its very definition; it’s logically impossible. Do you agree? If not, why not?

I reject the idea of the supernatural. I have no idea why you'd propose the existence of it. I have no idea why you'd propose the existence of something that can impact the natural world but not be detected by it. It's absurd. It's contradictory. It's madness.
So, the only thing immaterial would be things like concepts, numbers, etc. which aren't things that you'd test with science because it's unimportant (testing whether the number "2" is equal to the concept of 2 is absurd.)
Defining something as logically impossible to test for, then claim it exists and can affect that material world is the logical impossibility. I don't think you can logically propose it. You can write it. I can write "he's a married bachelor," but that doesn't mean I ought to believe it, form a religion around it, pray to it and tell other people they are going to hell for not believing it.

So, why in the world do you think it's logical to propose the existence of something that can obtain in reality (say, cure cancer, raise the dead, cause a big bang, create more bread and fish, make a person able to walk on water, communicate with people, cause lights in the sky, the dead to rise from graves en masse, stop the Sun in the sky, save a person from a plane crash) but not be detectable - as a definitive and objective feature of said thing?

To me it's as if you have come up with "The Force" and defined it in a way to avoid any burden of proof - because you know it doesn't exist, you just hope it exists.

[boatsnguitars]

Now you: explain what the Supernatural is.

You aren’t out of your logical fix yet, so there is no moving forward. Go into the scientific proof where philosophy was wrong about the logical fix you are in. I think science is extremely valuable, but it can’t be illogical. I’m open to being shown you aren’t in a logical fix, either with science or philosophy, alone or mixed together.

Until then, you remain of the belief that my philosophical arguments (that work off of scientific and historical data) cannot give us truth, so there’d be no point in me explaining how we can know the supernatural exists and some characteristics of it.

I'm not in a logical fix. Let's move on. Philosophy can only surmise. For example, if you start with the idea that the Supernatural exists and inform all your theories about reality with that basic error, you will never come to truth. You may accidentally come to some truths, but if they can't be verified as true - they can't be verified as true.
So, go ahead, verify a truth about our reality that you can't verify if it is true about our reality. I'll wait. I'll wait for you to explain that something you call a 'philosophical truth' is an actual truth despite your inability to verify if it is true. Does it obtain in reality or not?

Go ahead and show that your "philosophical arguments (that work off of scientific and historical data) can give us truth."

But, seriously, please just define the Supernatural. Why is it difficult?

Let me try:

The Supernatural is a mysterious energy field created by life that binds the galaxy together. Harnessing the power of the Supernatural gives the Jesus, God, Satan, the angels and demons, and others sensitive to this spiritual energy extraordinary abilities, such as levitating objects, tricking minds, and seeing things before they happen. While the Supernatural can grant users powerful abilities, it also directs their actions. And it has a will of its own, which both scholars and mystics have spent millennia seeking to understand.

https://www.starwars.com/databank/the-force

[The Tanager]

But, seriously, please just define the Supernatural. Why is it difficult?

Oh, you wanted a definition? Since you talked about consciousness emerging from the fact that matter exists, I thought you were asking me to lay out what I believe exists in the supernatural category. I was saying that would be useless if one can’t gain knowledge without science at every step along the way. I’ve already given the definition. The supernatural is something that is non-physical, immaterial, non-natural.

No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that Philosophy, Logic and Science - combined - is the only pathway. Science is critical. Your example of Einstein is perfect. There were a lot of 'philosophies' about the nature of reality, but science was able to weed out the bad ideas. Ideas are great, and we need them to move forward, but all the philosophizing in the world isn't going to change what is materially real about reality.

But we aren’t talking about the material realness of reality when talking about whether the supernatural exists or doesn’t exist; it’s not made of matter. Why should someone believe that science is a necessary element of any knowledge of reality? There isn’t science to back that claim up. You are right back in the logical fix. Your principles of reasoning undercut themselves.

I’ve stated that science, as the study of physical reality, cannot study the non-physical (which would include the supernatural I’m arguing for) by its very definition; it’s logically impossible. Do you agree? If not, why not?

I reject the idea of the supernatural. I have no idea why you'd propose the existence of it. I have no idea why you'd propose the existence of something that can impact the natural world but not be detected by it. It's absurd. It's contradictory. It's madness.

Your reasoning seems to be that what I said can’t be logically impossible because that would lead to a different logical impossibility. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your response. If I have understood you correctly, why is it logically impossible for a non-natural thing to impact the natural world to where its natural effects could be detected by natural means, but that the cause itself couldn’t be detected by natural means? I don’t see a logical absurdity there.

Defining something as logically impossible to test for, then claim it exists and can affect that material world is the logical impossibility. I don't think you can logically propose it. You can write it. I can write "he's a married bachelor," but that doesn't mean I ought to believe it, form a religion around it, pray to it and tell other people they are going to hell for not believing it.

It’s logically impossible to physically test for, but it’s not logically impossible to test for.

So, why in the world do you think it's logical to propose the existence of something that can obtain in reality (say, cure cancer, raise the dead, cause a big bang, create more bread and fish, make a person able to walk on water, communicate with people, cause lights in the sky, the dead to rise from graves en masse, stop the Sun in the sky, save a person from a plane crash) but not be detectable - as a definitive and objective feature of said thing?

To me it's as if you have come up with "The Force" and defined it in a way to avoid any burden of proof - because you know it doesn't exist, you just hope it exists.

I haven’t defined it in a way to avoid any burden of proof. I’m questioning how strictly you limit the means of proof. Your limitation on how to test knowledge is self-defeating. Therefore, it’s not a rational limitation on how to test knowledge. That shows that the means of proof is wider than you want to allow and it’s under that logically wider means that I take on the burden of proof.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #747]

"Supernatural" can just as accurately be defined as a concept which by its very nature cannot be shown to exist (as true) or not exist (as false).

As a concept, it makes itself an inaccessible and unnecessary layer to superimpose on the natural world. Unproven unprovable and therefore unnecessary unless there is no way in which to explain anything human beings experience in purely natural terms, which I have already shown is indeed conceptually possible.

If I have understood you correctly, why is it logically impossible for a non-natural thing to impact the natural world to where its natural effects could be detected by natural means, but that the cause itself couldn’t be detected by natural means?

The point isn't whether it is logically possible, but whether it is logically necessary. It is not, therefore, it is essentially a concept which is "besides the point" re our existence/the reason things exist.

[boatsnguitars]

But, seriously, please just define the Supernatural. Why is it difficult?

Oh, you wanted a definition? Since you talked about consciousness emerging from the fact that matter exists, I thought you were asking me to lay out what I believe exists in the supernatural category. I was saying that would be useless if one can’t gain knowledge without science at every step along the way. I’ve already given the definition. The supernatural is something that is non-physical, immaterial, non-natural.

That tells me what it isn't.
I don't define Material as "not non-material."
I don't define a dog as "non-cat."

Give me a positive definition.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/at ... tivism/#L6

2. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
Primary Attributes
Secondary Attributes
Relational Attributes.
3. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
4. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
5. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
6. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
7. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

1. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

The theist, in attempt to provide meaning to the term “God”, may object to this argument by saying that we know “God” to be infinite, limitless, and immaterial. These descriptions, however, amongst others, do nothing to help their position. This is because these descriptions are not identifying in nature—they are “negative definitions”.

A negative definition is a definition which tells us what something is not, rather than what something is. It is a description which critically lacks specificity—not telling us what is meant by a term that we may apply any secondary traits, but informing us only of what it is not, which doesn’t help our situation at all.

For example, consider the following identification:

“I am not George W. Bush, Jr.”

Now, while it is true that I am not George W. Bush, Jr., this particular identification tells you virtually nothing about me. All it tells you is that I am not one particular person. It still leaves the possibility of me being any other individual on earth, or even any other responsive entity in the universe. As such, it critically lacks specificity.

Observing the information given to us about the term “God” – we can see that such identifications (infinite, limitless, and immaterial) are all negative in their meanings. “Infinite” is to be without a restraint of time, “Limitless” is to be without boundaries (perhaps in action, such as “omnipotence”), and “Immaterial” is to be lacking of a material substance.

The problem here is that none of these terms actually identify what “God”’s primary attribute actually is, and thus our inability to grasp or understand what we are talking about—i.e. what it is that we are discussing, remains.

Thus, we can see that not only does this objection fail to provide meaning to the term “God”, but also that it enforces the need for specificity in concept identification.

This clearly applies to the Supernatural. In fact, I have no idea from the definitions for God and the Supernatural if they are different. Perhaps you will choose to say, "God and the Supernatural are different, becaus eI define them as different." That's not helpful at all - and does nothing to establish if they actually obtain in Reality.

So, again, define the Supernatural.

[The Tanager]

That tells me what it isn't.
I don't define Material as "not non-material."
I don't define a dog as "non-cat."

Give me a positive definition.

Why? We define some things negatively: unfavorable, negative, absence, etc. There is nothing wrong in defining a word negatively. The supernatural is something that is not made of natural stuff. That’s a perfectly logical concept.

It is absolutely true that there are beings in this world that are non-George-W-Bush-Jrs. This doesn’t tell you everything about those beings (that comes with other arguments and descriptions), but it is a valid way to define the group of people that don’t include good old W. It is a valid definition of an actual conceptual category. We can then make arguments for/against the existence of such beings.