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?

[boatsnguitars]

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.

Why indeed... Arguments against what Beings? Non-Beings?
Face it, you can't define the Supernatural. You can't and now it's patently obvious you can't and won't. You've been exposed. You're done.

[The Tanager]

Why indeed... Arguments against what Beings? Non-Beings?
Face it, you can't define the Supernatural. You can't and now it's patently obvious you can't and won't. You've been exposed. You're done.

Do non-George-W-Bush-Jrs exist in reality?

[boatsnguitars]

Why indeed... Arguments against what Beings? Non-Beings?
Face it, you can't define the Supernatural. You can't and now it's patently obvious you can't and won't. You've been exposed. You're done.

Do non-George-W-Bush-Jrs exist in reality?

Like a Yeti or unicorn? Come on, just accept you're done

[The Tanager]

Like a Yeti or unicorn? Come on, just accept you're done.

Aren't you a non-George-W-Bush-Jr? Don't you exist? Accept it, having a negative definition isn't a problem for our discussion. That critique fails. And you still haven't supported the necessity of scientific evidence for every element of reality since that was self-defeating. Either admit it or come back with rational responses on both of those points to move this discussion forward rationally.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #754]

It is absolutely true that there are beings in this world that are non-George-W-Bush-Jrs.

Do non-George-W-Bush-Jrs exist in reality?

Like a Yeti or unicorn? Come on, just accept you're done

Aren't you a non-George-W-Bush-Jr? Don't you exist? Accept it, having a negative definition isn't a problem for our discussion.

If one is arguing that Gods are physical beings, like non-George-W-Bush-Jrs are also physical beings, then indeed, the negative definition wouldn't be problem re the discussion.

But Tanager isn't arguing God/Gods are physical (and therefore natural). Specifically Tanager is arguing for supernaturalism which is why such is indeed a negative definition which is obviously a problem re the discussion.

[boatsnguitars]

Like a Yeti or unicorn? Come on, just accept you're done.

Aren't you a non-George-W-Bush-Jr? Don't you exist? Accept it, having a negative definition isn't a problem for our discussion. That critique fails. And you still haven't supported the necessity of scientific evidence for every element of reality since that was self-defeating. Either admit it or come back with rational responses on both of those points to move this discussion forward rationally.

Robin Hood, Han Solo, Gilgamesh, Yahweh and Quetzalcoatl are also non-George-W-Bush-Jr beings. Do they also exist?

You're done.

[The Tanager]

Robin Hood, Han Solo, Gilgamesh, Yahweh and Quetzalcoatl are also non-George-W-Bush-Jr beings. Do they also exist?

You're done.

Did I say all non-George-W-Bush-Jrs exist? No. It was a defeater of your reasoning that things with negative definitions can be written off for that fact. They can't. Do you have a rational response to maintain that things with negative definitions (like the 'supernatural') should still be written off because they are defined negatively? If not, but you still continue to think you can write it off for that reason anyway then, yes, this conversation is done because you don't want to think rationally about it.

[boatsnguitars]

Robin Hood, Han Solo, Gilgamesh, Yahweh and Quetzalcoatl are also non-George-W-Bush-Jr beings. Do they also exist?

You're done.

Did I say all non-George-W-Bush-Jrs exist? No. It was a defeater of your reasoning that things with negative definitions can be written off for that fact. They can't. Do you have a rational response to maintain that things with negative definitions (like the 'supernatural') should still be written off because they are defined negatively? If not, but you still continue to think you can write it off for that reason anyway then, yes, this conversation is done because you don't want to think rationally about it.

The point is that you haven't defined anything by saying it isn't George Bush. Anything at all. In fact, isn't it true that things that don't exist are not George Bush?

And, let's be even more clear: how do you know it isn't George Bush? If you don't know what it is, how do you know what it isn't?

[The Tanager]

The point is that you haven't defined anything by saying it isn't George Bush. Anything at all. In fact, isn't it true that things that don't exist are not George Bush?

And, let's be even more clear: how do you know it isn't George Bush? If you don't know what it is, how do you know what it isn't?

If that’s the point, the point is wrong. We have defined something. We have divided reality into two different valid categories that we have defined. There are things that are GWB Jr’s and things that aren’t. We have a more positive definition of the GWB Jr category, but through logical necessity know that if something doesn’t fit that definition, then it will go in the negatively defined category. Later we can split the non-GWB Jr category even further through other positive and negative definitions.

At this point this doesn’t mean everything that is non GWB Jr exists in reality, just that we have valid definitions to help us categorize things. We can’t conflate definitions with existence. By allowing the valid definition of ‘supernatural’ to be negatively defined, we aren’t committing ourselves to anything in that category actually existing. I’m not defining the supernatural into existence. But you can’t define the supernatural out of existence either.

You still need to defend these other critiques as well:

(1) Why should someone believe that science is a necessary element of any knowledge of reality? There isn’t science to back that claim up.

(2) 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?

[boatsnguitars]

The point is that you haven't defined anything by saying it isn't George Bush. Anything at all. In fact, isn't it true that things that don't exist are not George Bush?

And, let's be even more clear: how do you know it isn't George Bush? If you don't know what it is, how do you know what it isn't?

If that’s the point, the point is wrong. We have defined something. We have divided reality into two different valid categories that we have defined. There are things that are GWB Jr’s and things that aren’t. We have a more positive definition of the GWB Jr category, but through logical necessity know that if something doesn’t fit that definition, then it will go in the negatively defined category. Later we can split the non-GWB Jr category even further through other positive and negative definitions.

At this point this doesn’t mean everything that is non GWB Jr exists in reality, just that we have valid definitions to help us categorize things. We can’t conflate definitions with existence. By allowing the valid definition of ‘supernatural’ to be negatively defined, we aren’t committing ourselves to anything in that category actually existing. I’m not defining the supernatural into existence. But you can’t define the supernatural out of existence either.

You still need to defend these other critiques as well:

(1) Why should someone believe that science is a necessary element of any knowledge of reality? There isn’t science to back that claim up.

(2) 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?

You haven't defined it into two categories - because you don't know what "it" is.

You've said the "supernatural is immaterial" - how do you know? Just by definition? And it's not two categories. It's one: "Things that exist" - yet, you can't know if it exists or not.

So draw a Venn diagram. Draw a circle. This is everything that exists. Draw a dot inside of it. This is everything that is Bush. Everything else in that circle is, indeed something else.

What you can't even tell us is whether the thing you claim isn't Bush exists or not - Because you don't even know what it is. You don't even know if it actually is Bush. You don't know of the "Supernatural" as you call it is some unknown Material process. This is how little you know about it.

It's just a word to you. "Supernatural" So easy to say, and add a lot of words to it to make you sound like you're saying something about it, but you aren't. Anymore than a person going into great detail about the mating habits of Unicorns. Or the magical properties of pixies.

You're done.