Three Claims of Uniformitarian Naturalism

[Xelasnave.1947]

Yazata...

Thank you so much for your comments!

To me, you are like a calm, cool, refreshing, and gentle breeze of grace and deep wisdom here.

I am very thankful for you!!!

I thought I was the refreshing, gentle breeze of grace...whatever that means....and no doubt the praise of great wisdom will go to whoever does not reject your nonsense.

You ignore posts here with alarming consistency, I suspect you no longer read mine but certainly you do not attempt to discuss things.

I now have a long list of matters ignored by you which in itself proves that you are more interested in trying to shore up your beliefs and push them on others than you are at embracing the truth...you will not deny that will you?

All your calls re these claims rushes past addressing the most fundamental of claims which still goes unsupported.

And despite anyone using the title of agnostic we all know that is a pussy foot term used by folk who given their exhibited intelligence do not want that persona erroded by admitting they actually believe in fairey tales...a dishonest cop out in my view...if you have researched the matter there is no need to leave the gate open one little bit.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

So I am not allowed to thank anyone either?

You misunderstand as usual...my remark was a to Yazata's post, which you predictably liked.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

You misunderstand as usual...my remark was a to Yazata's post, which you predictably liked.

Why did you quote me?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

I thought I was the refreshing, gentle breeze of grace...whatever that means....and no doubt the praise of great wisdom will go to whoever does not reject your nonsense.

You ignore posts here with alarming consistency, I suspect you no longer read mine but certainly you do not attempt to discuss things.

I now have a long list of matters ignored by you which in itself proves that you are more interested in trying to shore up your beliefs and push them on others than you are at embracing the truth...you will not deny that will you?

All your calls re these claims rushes past addressing the most fundamental of claims which still goes unsupported.

And despite anyone using the title of agnostic we all know that is a pussy foot term used by folk who given their exhibited intelligence do not want that persona erroded by admitting they actually believe in fairey tales...a dishonest cop out in my view...if you have researched the matter there is no need to leave the gate open one little bit.
Alex

I agree, I certainly have not addressed every specific comment or question of anyone or everyone here.

I never claimed that I have.

And yes at times, I have seen you also to be a refreshing beautiful spring welling up with insight and knowledge.

I have also seen the warm beautiful side of Q, particularly in other treads.

Sometimes I don’t comment because I agree with you. At other times I don’t comment because I don’t agree, and think that the branches of the answer might reach out too far, to communicate it to you effectively. My inadequacy not yours.

It would not be so great if, hypothetically let’s say, I were to agree with you on something, but then be called a liar even for agreeing with you. Again hypothetically speaking.

Have I ever called anyone a liar here, because I disagree with them? I really don’t think so, but may have missed it or forgotten about it.

Which one of your questions or comments that I have ignored would you like to pursue, at the moment?

Please pick just one, for now. OK?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I don’t think it is that simple...

Well you would not as simplicity slams the door in your face,...the only way you can get traction is to try and move discussion away from the obvious because to attempt to address the fundamental proposition..like you make a claim back it up...leave you out in the cold...can you back up any of your claims? Yes or no? Why is that too simple...
Are you going to raise taxes..yes or no? Mmmm you could have a career in politics as you certainly can avoid giving a yes no answer.

It is that simple and the fact that you find that unpleasant detracts in no way from the fact that it is that simple.

Is there a god..yes or no..yes ..back it up. No..so you are going with the evidence great.

Ignorance of a thing can never disprove that thing.

But that is not what you are saying at all...there is no suggestion that ignorance tries to prove anything...why would you think that?

Absence of Evidence (Ignorance) is not Evidence of Absence (Non-existence)

This typifies your mobs approach to the truth..you just keep manipulating words until the nonsense you present sounds reasonable.. well to me you have just turned your nonsense into super nonsense.

Absence of evidence is not ignorance..the two are unrelated..don't you see that..is your determination to make an irrelevant point so extreme that you can not realise what you have done here..honestly you just don't see it do you?

I brushed my teeth at 9:15 AM last Thursday and you ask me to prove it. And I say “I really can’t prove it”

Trivial, but making a trivial claim is one thing making a claim you know that the universe was created by your god and he does you special favours is way past backing up that you have brushed your teeth, you do see that don't you?

So obviously it never happened

Why would you say that..only because you think you can apply such simple childlike logic to a greater picture.. you can't.. it is that simple.

You are under the misguided impression that the childish way examples are put up in church will be accepted in the real world..well no..sorry you need to act grown up I am afraid.

However I will indulge you.
So it never happened...that would be a claim I guess..heck it is..how about that...so if I were to claim it never happened I would need to back up that claim..but being a trivial matter why would I bother? I don't think we would see such an example play out in reality.

Making claims about creation is not trivial..is it..and trying to use such a childish approach is rather silly..isn't it? If I claimed to have come here from another planet, a lesser claim than yours, you would reasonably ask for a back up..wouldn't you?

Is that the kind of logic I am supposed to teach my children?

Look you are cornered and trying to bite everything in front of you..now just settle down and realise in your attempt to avoid facing the truth you are talking more nonsense than you usually do...

What you should teach your kids is to be honest and not use trivial dishonest tactics to support a position just because you can not admit to being wrong..and if you think you are right just check the history, if you think you are right just read your bible cover to cover...perhaps have your kids read the bible cover to cover...perhaps have your kids read the history, perhaps tell them the truth and certainly tell them if they make a substantial claim they need to back it up.

If you want them to believe miracles are real perhaps show them one where all your claims pertaining to miracles are well evidenced...rather than just make an unsupported claim.

Would you disagree or agree with this version?

I think there is no need for me to answer really..look as I said because you are cornered you are becoming more irrational...so why not go away and just think calmly about the matters I raise...set out to read a couple of pages of your bible each day, and if you fail to comprehend stop and read that part again until you understand what is in front of you..read the lot..don't skip proverbs because it's just a lot of stuff not mentioning god..read it..read it all..and perhaps after each session..ask could that be god inspired? Is there any room for doubt...and do not dare avoid the Old Testament with nonsense that JC said it was now irrelevant..he said the opposite.

And read the history..the history of all religion ...all you can..back before the Eygiptians but consider their influence..read about all gods and ask why humans invent them.

If nothing else teach your kids to learn everything and dont confine them to one selected version of reality that was constructed by folk who did not know where the Sun went at night and although clever in their day were most ignorant of the simplest of things..you do realise a five year old knows more than any of them..there is nothing mystical in the past they did not know more ..I just do not understand why such is not obvious to you other than faith has destroyed all ability to reason and observe.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I agree, I certainly have not addressed every specific comment or question of anyone or everyone here.

Tell me do you find that is ok?

I never claimed that I have.

You would not dare to I would hope.

And yes at times, I have seen you also to be a refreshing beautiful spring welling up with insight and knowledge.

That's more like it but please back up that claim and in this case forget all I said about keeping it simple.

but then be called a liar even for agreeing with you.

I hope being called a liar is not something that you will take personally.
I don't think you are a liar in so far as you believe what you say is true..in fact I believe you are probably a very decent human..my point that you miss is..making an unsupported claim is in effect lieing..you don't think so but it is seen that way...if you want to make a claim without support I encourage you to use some sort of qualification to indicate you are presenting an idea not a fact.
And when you make claims about a creator and how he cares ..whatever..one needs to be careful.
And I know I am casual also but the difference is I don't say anything unless I can later back it up..May not prove it even but anyone listening would admit that what I said was more than something that just popped into my head.

Have I ever called anyone a liar here,

You may if you wish.
Please understand that being called a liar is a reasonable response to a claim that you can't back up.
Your claim that your father was saved by God could have been put forward more delicately..say ..I don't know how he pulled thru but believe our prayers were answered and thank the medical team and the peace I found in prayer...I can't see a lie...but to say what you said really is something else...

Which one of your questions or comments that I have ignored would you like to pursue, at the moment?

Thank you for offering, that settles everything for me, but I have to go and do things. I feel you are learning things which makes me happy as all I like to see is that folk have the freedom to think...as I said I take from the bible, but many other places as well. I don't like to see folk believing nonsense without question..I want better humans, a world where superstition does not make us less than what we could be..to seek the future rather than wallow in the past..
You take care and I wish you all the best.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Alex,

Claim 1
Nature is all that exists.

Is a universal, all encompassing, without exception Claim, and you really are making it all over the place, most likely in every single thread within the Religion Sub-Forum that you have ever posted in.

And you are also asking, not only me, but every single person on Earth to accept it.

It is an assumption, which may or may not be true.

If this is not an unproven and even an unprovable Claim, I am done, and I would have no idea what that would conceivably even look like.

Your Claim impacts every person on the entire Earth. It is figuratively the Size of the Universe and to infinity and beyond.

Your Claim is certainly not trivial, yet you demand that we all accept it as fact, without proof.

So what were you saying again?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Alex,

Yes. I am back and so nice to find that you have questions.

Claim 1
Nature is all that exists.

Is a universal, all encompassing, without exception Claim, and you really are making it all over the place, most likely in every single thread within the Religion Sub-Forum that you have ever posted in

I don't think I have made that claim but certainly the gist of my position is more or less that.

If you want me to express my position I will say this... I am happy to speculate that there is nothing more than what we can observe but certainly there could be lots of things we don't know about however to entertain stuff that is just made up is ok so long as we do not think our speculation is the fact.

I think it is not unreasonable to think there is nothing more than nature and in fact if there were a creator I would think that he/she or it would fit within the term nature.

For me saying nature is somewhat like saying universe both include all there is..even your invented gods.

And if pressed even I may conceed the possibility of a creator, well probably not but to make my point I shall,but what I will never accept is that humans have any insight as to their alleged creator, that they have established that their alleged creator has ever spoken to or communicated in any way with any human and if there is any influence at all from their alleged creator that such influence is evidenced in any way at all.

Now being realistic the situation I describe is what we could only be left with...if there is perhaps one aspect to dwell upon is this...we do not know there is a god and have no evidence whatsoever that ..a the universe was created for humans, b that this creator has inspired any thought or writting or c that the proposition that we shall, after death, join this creator at his place, is in anyway established even to a remote degree...we don't even have small indicators... in reality we have nothing and selecting what someone says that supports ones preferred make believe is delusional. A group of people agreeing with each other is no guarantee of truth.

If it makes you happy let me say this..if you have anything to suggest that there is more than nature present what you have but please if it is just a wish list think long and hard as to what such presentation may prove...and I am thinking here delusion and your susceptibility to same.

Why don't we approach it this way ...what is your claim in respect of nature? Make it known..I suspect your claim is..there is more to things than nature...you certainly may be able to prove a positive statement but to seek proof of a negative is difficult.

And it seems that most folk are happy with the general statement that nature is it and I expect even those who have a god would include god in nature..but you are trying to make some point so why not come out with it...I guess your claim would be that we have nature but outside nature we have the super natural where gods exist..or something.

Make your point rather than play word games.

It is an assumption, which may or may not be true.

True but the fact is it is reasonable and consistent with our observations and experience, further to change that assumption we need a reason to do so..frankly at the moment there is no reason to not think we have made a sensible assumption..is there?

If this is not an unproven and even an unprovable Claim, I am done, and I would have no idea what that would conceivably even look like.

I don't understand what you are saying...other than to claim your observations are correct and that it is unreasonable to make an assumption based on observation and experience as being somewhat reliable.

You disagree with the claim, I get it...next step is to show that something exists outside nature...just agreeing there is a possibility of something outside nature takes us nowhere..don't you see that?

Your Claim impacts every person on the entire Earth.

That is why I am so careful with my words..it is a big responsibility having the world waiting upon each word you utter....you are kidding right..first the claim is like an orphan left on my doorstep...and you left it there..so I find myself having to look after it when it is the one who left it there that take it home and look after it...given I have made honest and reasonable attempts to play your word games why don't you now tell us your thoughts as to why the claim needs review...if it is a claim...where did you find it anyways..my bet is on some creationist web site who are busy making straw men to fight their unwinable battles..tell me, honestly, where did you get this claim..a science site? Or a creationist site? Can you give me an honest answer?

In any event why not do things this way...I have said whatever just have faith that I am right...I am in the now presumably up to date, certainly not dead for thousands of years so I can give you the latest..just have faith in me..clearly I have been blessed with supreme knowledge which can only be evidence of Devine endorsement ... in fact I speculate that God has sent me here to guide the world to salvation...crazy shit eh?

Why do you reject my crazy shit, me being a real person, and you follow stuff apparently made up by Romans...you know I am joking don't you run off telling folk you have found the guru.

Your Claim is certainly not trivial, yet you demand that we all accept it as fact, without proof.

Yes that is my demand and you better damn well accept it as fact or your going to get it.

Let's not make this about me, I didn't ask you to leave your bundle on my door step...why don't you tell us in your words or someone else's what is outside nature and why we should believe such.
And I promise that I won't say a thing..you just present what you believe, no claims it is fact, just the way you see it..I am sincerely interested you see.

So what were you saying again?

Dear me, concentrate Son, I speculate you are just trolling, I speculate you saw "the claims" on a creationist web site, I speculate that you are unable to back up any claim you make or that you are interested to do so, I speculate that you are uneducated in history and happy with your situation, I speculate that you have sold your credibility for a promise of an after life and a comfortable death, I speculate you hold onto Christian teachings because you are afraid of the world and think christianity will help your kids manage this world.

And I thank you for the entertainment and the opportunity to present truth time and time again...and do not believe anything unless you hear it from me..just kidding..have a great day.

Also..how do you feel about life on other planets..does your belief thing exclude the prospect of other life forms? Maybe ones that get more miracles than us?

Alex

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Alex,

Here is a mirror of Claim 1 which I am betting you agree with, at least agree that it is also a great danger, perhaps even a much greater danger,

Claim 1 - Alternate 01
God is all that exists.

Is a universal, all encompassing, without exception Claim, and Seti is really making it all over the place, most likely in every single thread within the Religion Sub-Forum that he has ever posted in.

And Seti is also asking, not only me, but every single person on Earth to accept it.

It is an assumption, which may or may not be true.

If this is not an unproven and even an unprovable Claim, I am done, and I would have no idea what that would conceivably even look like.

Seti’s Claim impacts every person on the entire Earth. It is figuratively the Size of the Universe and to infinity and beyond.

His Claim is certainly not trivial, yet he demands that we all accept it as fact, without proof.

Take that Seti!!!

Ouch!!! Stop that Alex!!!

Anyway, I need to be very, very careful how I present my view of things, that is for sure, and I certainly don’t want to mislead or hurt anyone!!!

Just as I know that you do not want to mislead or hurt anyone!!!

I fail sometimes Alex!

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Alex,

Here is a mirror of Claim 1 which I am betting you agree with, at least agree that it is also a great danger.

Claim 1 - Alternate 01
God is all that exists.

Is a universal, all encompassing, without exception Claim, and Seti is really making it all over the place, most likely in every single thread within the Religion Sub-Forum that he has ever posted in.

And Seti is also asking, not only you, but every single person on Earth to accept it.

It is an assumption, which may or may not be true.

If this is not an unproven and even an unprovable Claim, I am done, and I would have no idea what that would conceivably even look like.

Seti’s Claim impacts every person on the entire Earth. It is figuratively the Size of the Universe and to infinity and beyond.

His Claim is certainly not trivial, yet he demands that we all accept it as fact, without proof.

Take that Seti!!!

Ouch!!! Stop that Alex!!!

Anyway, I need to be very, very careful how I present my view of things, that is for sure, and I certainly don’t want to mislead or hurt anyone!!!

Just as I know that you do not want to mislead or hurt anyone!!!

I see your point but perhaps the slight difference is I see nature all around me and give it no special attributes and I suspect you see god all around you but you give it special attributes.

Big difference..but look rather than rush onto something new why don't you address my most recent post there is so much in it that I was expecting feed back on...the question I would really like you to answer, honestly, is where did you come up with your claim stuff?

I did have a little look but I stopped when I thought..this isn't something science would go on with and sounds like the sort of crap you would get at a creationist site...I do go to creationist web sites a great deal as I like to see how they need to lie to preserve their truth..contradictory it seems.

Anyways an answer please to that question....where did this claim thing come from.???

Back to your latest...

But first another question besides all the rest....are you serious???

No of course not, I see thru you..

You joker you.
you throw out a bone for the Old dog to bury hoping he will forget..mmm now he has read his last post a d encourages you to do the same and try giving it your best shot. If you agree say so, if you don't say so if you have a different opinion say so but please just rushing past the questions etc defeated the purpose of the forum don't you think.

Got to go again so you will have plenty of time to address my last post...make sure you do because if you don't it will be no more mister nice guy from me...you really don't want to cop it from me..do you...so please don't sign your own death warrant....it will hurt me more than it hurts you...don't you know when you hear that you are really going to cop it....and don't forget what are your thoughts on life elsewhere as it has enormous bearing on everything..probably something you have never thought about.

Alex

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Also..how do you feel about life on other planets..does your belief thing exclude the prospect of other life forms? Maybe ones that get more miracles than us?

Alex

Thanks! I loved your entire post!

It is getting late here and I have to get some shut-eye and I think that your last question might be really fun so???

...this will give you even more reasons to think I am as crazy as a loon.

I believe, emphasis on believe, in Aliens and think that something out there somewhere written about them could be, not with certainty, but might possibly be true!

There I said it.

So call me crazy!!!

Have you ever seen anything regarding this topic in your Telescopes, or ever photoshopped, oops I mean photographed, sorry for the slip there, anything interesting!

 

[James R]

Yazata:

What trade is that? The only time I've ever seen that phrase used is by atheists on the internet. It doesn't seem to be a term of art in any field that I know of, certainly not in the academic study of religion.

The term is named in honour of creationist Duane Gish, who frequently used this tactic in debates against proponents of the theory of evolution.

It is a debating technique in which you try to hit the person you are debating with as many arguments as possible in a short space of time, without regard for the accuracy or strength of the arguments. The idea is that since it usually takes a lot more time and effort to carefully refute each argument than it takes to raise that argument in the first place, the debate will inevitably conclude with many points unresolved or unaddressed. The person employing the Gish Gallop can then go away from the debate claiming to have "won" because his opponent did not refute all of the arguments raised.

The relevant "trade" would therefore be the "trade" of creationists, and more generally biblical literalists who engage in debates, in person or on the internet. I'm sure the term will have appeared in the academic literature by now. Maybe you're not reading widely enough.

How does one go about "debunking" a miracle? See my remarks earlier in the thread (post # 97 as I recall):\

David Hume defines 'miracle' to mean a violation of the laws of nature. But that's an exceedingly strong and tendentious definition, which is one of the places that his argument can be attacked. (The miracle argument isn't original with Hume. Others made it before him.) Many theologians would probably favor St. Augustine's account of miracles, which suggested that God always works in accordance with the hypothetical "laws of nature", simply using very obscure ones put into creation for that express purpose to work the particular miracle. Augustine's motivation in arguing that way wasn't to defend "science", but rather to defend the idea that God is consistent and doesn't contradict himself by breaking his own rules.

Augustine's account opens up the possibility (contra Hume) that a miracle may indeed happen in accordance with the "laws of nature", but nevertheless happen as the result of divine intention. God simply rigged creation to turn out that way for God's own purposes. So an atheist arguing that a miracle has a "natural cause" doesn't necessarily constitute an argument that an event wasn't a miracle at all, if miracles needn't be violations of the "laws of nature".

That's what the young Christian couple are saying when they say that their new baby is a miracle. They aren't for a moment suggesting that their new baby is a violation of the laws of nature. They are instead saying that they are treating their new baby as an act of divine intention.

If a miracle is not a violation of the laws of nature, then how are we to separate the miraculous from the mundane? Obviously, the only way to do that for sure would be to prove that divine intervention is involved, but such proof is going to be elusive or impossible to find if the divinity is acting through the medium of natural laws.

Given, then, that we can't prove divine intervention, can we perhaps infer it from circumstances in some way? I think not. For example, how will we distinguish between a fortuitous, unlikely coincidence and a divine act?

Some people are probably willing to label any fortunate or happy event - the birth of a child, say - as a miracle from God. But there's no evidence at all that such events require any intervention by a god. We are left, therefore, with two options: (1) put the fortunate event down to entirely natural processes; or (2) put the fortunate event down to entirely natural processes manipulated by God. Occam's razor suggests that adding God into the mix is a superfluous hypothesis that should be discarded, since the alternative explanation is simpler and has equal explanatory power.

It's the idea that there is meaning in events...

Fine, but why assume the source of the meaning is God, rather than in the human beings who assign significance to the events?

And that choice about how to conceive of events is in turn is a matter of interpretation and doesn't seem to involve any objective facts about physical reality that those in the atheistic trade can hook their rhetorical talons into.

It seems you agree with me, then, that to add God into the interpretation is to add a belief that is not grounded in any objective facts. Why do it, then? The only reason I can see is that it makes the religious person feel good, or it comforts them, or it otherwise appeals to their religious worldview. There's danger in believing things are real just because you'd like them to be real. Don't you think?

Logically, that would seem to be the case, wouldn't it?

The relevant point is the one about onus of proof. It should be up to the person alleging a miracle (or 1550 of them) to present the evidence for those miracles and to explain how he knows they are miracles. It is not up to other people to try to prove the negative. The time to believe in the miracle is when there is sufficient evidence to justify belief.

 

[James R]

I brushed my teeth at 9:15 AM last Thursday and you ask me to prove it. And I say “I really can’t prove it”.
So obviously it never happened?

Is that the kind of logic I am supposed to teach my children?

Of course. Your children should be taught that the strength of their belief in anything as "fact" should conform to the amount and strength of the evidence for the truth of that fact.

Let's assume that the only evidence that you brushed your teeth at 9:15 AM last Thursday is your claim that you did that. That would be anecdotal evidence, albeit first-hand evidence. Whether or not we should take your word for it would need to be decided based on an assessment of your general level of honesty and your particular record of honesty in regards to reporting your teeth brushing, for instance.

If you ask your children whether they brushed their teeth before you put them to bed, there is no guarantee they will always tell the truth. Whether you take their word for it should depend on the kinds of things I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

On the other hand, let's say there are independent witnesses to your teeth-brushing last Thursday who can be interviewed. We could use them to check your story. If their version of the event matches yours, then we can justify having greater confidence that the event in question actually occurred. Mind you, we must view their evidence in light of their record of honesty in such matters, too, and allow for possible collusion with you to tell lies to their interlocutors.

Let's suppose that somebody took a video of you brushing your teeth last Thursday. Then we could check the time stamp on the video file to verify certain aspects of your claim, like that it happened at 9:15 am on the specified date.

Suppose you posted on twitter at 9:20 am last Thursday "Ahh! I just had a really good teeth-brushing session. Nothing like nice clean teeth!". That evidence would also potentially strengthen your claim, although again we'd have to allow for the possibility that you were concocting an alibi to be used later.

To summarise: your say-so that you brushed your teeth at 9:15 last Thursday is minimal evidence for your claim. A good record of honesty on your part would tend to strengthen our confidence that the event happened as described. Independent witness testimony would be even better. Video evidence could greatly strengthen the plausibility of your claim. An internet tweet could provide corroborating evidence.

Let's bring it back to the start. Let's assume we have only your word that the teeth-brushing happened, and nothing else. Does that mean the event never happened? Of course not. In fact, it could have happened even if you didn't tell anybody else about it. What I have addressed here is not whether it happened so much as whether it would be reasonable for anybody else to accept that it happened.

It's worth also bearing in mind that whether or not you brushed your teeth at 9:15 am is not very important, in the grand scheme of human affairs. Most people would probably be willing to take your word for it that it happened, unless they knew you as a compulsive liar or with a history of lying about your life and/or your tooth-brushing activities. Most people would probably say your word was sufficient in this case to believe your claim. If that belief turns out to be unjustified (because you actually lied, for instance), then not much turns on that, apart from your reputation for honesty, say.

On the other hand, consider the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. In the grand scheme of human affairs, it's actually quite important as to whether that event happened as described or not. History has been affected on a large scale because lot of people believe that event happened. If it turns out it didn't happen at all, then lots of people have been wrong. Decisions and actions taken as a result of believing a falsehood will have had resonances down the generations to the present. It follows, then, that merely taking the word of a few dubious sources for the veracity of that event might be fraught with dangers. Maybe we need the independent witnesses and the video recording before we should act on the basis that the event occurred as described.

I certainly hope that you teach your children to apportion their level of belief to the available evidence. Apart from anything else, it will reduce the possibility that they might waste portions of their lives acting on the basis of false information.

 

[James R]

Claim 1
Nature is all that exists.

Since you brought it up again, let's examine this claim in light of the available evidence, and apportion our belief appropriately.

The first thing I notice is that there's a lot of nature about. In fact, as I look around me, everything I see is part of nature (i.e. constructed from things in the natural world). So, a priori, it seems reasonable to say that everything is natural.

But we must consider the alternative, which is the statement: something that is supernatural exists. Obviously, if we can show that this is true then we must immediately reject the claim that "nature is all that exists". In fact, this seems a much more tractable approach to the problem, because we only need to find one supernatural thing to disprove the claim that "nature is all that exists".

So, let's look at the evidence for supernatural things. What have we got?

1. A lot of people say that supernatural things exist.
2. A lot of people believe that supernatural things exist.
3. There are many events that occur in the world that are difficult to explain.
4. Supernatural explanations could explain those difficult-to-explain events.

Can you think of anything else to add to that list? Nothing else really springs to my mind.

Now, to me, evidences (1) and (2) don't count for much, on their own, because I know that lots of people believe lots of things that demonstrably aren't true (as established by independent evidences). Maybe I can give a little credit on the basis of "where there's smoke there might be fire", but that's about it. Overall, the anecdotal evidence that the supernatural exists doesn't seem very strong to me.

Item (3), in my opinion, doesn't really move the needle much in favour of supernatural things, either. I know, for instance, that a lot of things that used to be difficult to explain are now known. Science, for instance, keeps explaining things that we didn't know for a long time. I can't see any compelling reason to invoke the supernatural to explain any of the remaining difficult-to-explain events.

But what about (4)? That also seems like extremely weak evidence to me, because supernatural explanations could be invoked to explain anything at all. Why do I feel hungry? Answer: a supernatural God made me hungry. Why is the sky blue? Answer: a supernatural God made the sky blue. Why did my football team lose its last match? Answer: a supernatural God made the team lose.

When something can be invoked to explain everything, it seems to me that it explains nothing. There must be a better answer to "why is the sky blue" than "God made it blue". The God explanation doesn't get me any closer to understanding why the sky is blue. Besides, non-supernatural explanations seems to explain why the sky is blue more than adequately, with no need to invoke gods or any other supernatural effects.

But what about that time I saw a misty apparition in the haunted house? Doesn't that demand a supernatural explanation? Wasn't it a supernatural ghost? Well, let's see, what independent evidences are there for ghosts? Hmmm... Lots of people say there are ghosts. Lots of people believe in ghosts. Misty apparitions can be difficult to explain. Ghosts might explain them.

Hey! That's the same list of "evidences" as for all the other supernatural things. The people who believe in ghosts don't strike me as very reliable. Nobody has ruled out scientific explanations for misty apparitions. Ghosts can be used to explain anything and everything, so they are non-explanations.

To sum up, then, what about the initial claim that "Nature is all that exists"?

Well, we've seen that the evidence that anything supernatural exists is very weak. Apportioning our belief to the evidence, then, suggests that we would be best off accepting, as a tentative conclusion, that nature is all that exists, at least until convincing evidence for the supernatural comes to light. We have plenty of evidence that natural things exist and no good evidence that anything supernatural exists, so this is the sensible, rational conclusion to reach, for now.

 

[James R]

Thanks! I loved your entire post!

It is getting late here and I have to get some shut-eye and I think that your last question might be really fun so???

...this will give you even more reasons to think I am as crazy as a loon.

I believe, emphasis on believe, in Aliens and think that something out there somewhere written about them could be, not with certainty, but might possibly be true!

There I said it.

So call me crazy!!!

Have you ever seen anything regarding this topic in your Telescopes, or ever photoshopped, oops I mean photographed, sorry for the slip there, anything interesting!

Thanks, SetiAlpha6!

I loved your entire post about your loving Alex's entire post!

You are a beautiful human being and I'd like to have sex with you!

Call me crazy, but the world is just so wonderful and shiny that magical unicorns are dancing around my head!

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I loved your entire post!

Very difficult not to but it is probably because I say everything you want to hear.

...this will give you even more reasons to think I am as crazy as a loon.

I dont think you are crazy at all, I can understand how you find yourself believing in a god etc and I can understand how you must find the alternative frightening. You are in that world, all around you folk think similar so there is little reason to question and probably less opportunity and sadly if you took a stand similar to mine you would lose all your friends probably your family and maybe your job.

The reality is frightening, for we realise that we have been conned and lied to and actual truth is inconvenient.

I am sure many folk go to church but dont believe.

So call me crazy!!!

There is a higher probability of aliens landing on the White House front lawn than JC returning...

I was wondering if the universe as just for humans in your view.

Have you ever seen anything regarding this topic in your Telescopes, or ever photoshopped, oops I mean photographed, sorry for the slip there, anything interesting!

No not a thing.

I know what your slip infers just question all things... liars and frauds seem more the rule than the exception...and never trust "an artist impression".
Science can have its frauds but they are usually found out, the system means even to commit fraud you need to work very hard.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

And Seti..here is some nature for you to share with your kids.

Alex

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Thanks, SetiAlpha6!

I loved your entire post about loving your loving Alex's entire post!

You are a beautiful human being and I'd like to have sex with you!

Call me crazy, but the world is just so wonderful and shiny that magical unicorns are dancing around my head!

Thank You!
I think?

You are a beautiful human being as well, James.


I love this post about you loving my post about me loving Alex’s post!!!

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I'm jealous.

At least I have beers.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

And Seti..here is some nature for you to share with your kids.

Alex

Alex,

I still need to read your last few posts more carefully, and I do not have enough time today.

Sorry!!!

Have to pay the bills. I have a deadline due tomorrow.

Thanks for the Awesome Video!
I did take the time to watch it...
Great Photography!!!

Later!