Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Natural Argument

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:25:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So simple, so sweet
P1 what exist in nature is natural.
P2 Humans exist in nature thus we are natural.
C1 Therefore anything in us is natural, including our minds: ideas, conceptions. Logic/ math, feelings and perceptions

Supernatural is "analytically" beyond nature.
Therefore supernatural is beyond logic and beyond Human understanding,
Therefore we could never logically prove anything supernatural.

Is it clear enough yet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:42:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hello dualism.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:01:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:42:53 AM, Mestari wrote:
Hello dualism.

Therefore anything in us is natural, including our minds: ideas, conceptions. Logic/ math, feelings and perceptions/
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:10:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:42:53 AM, Mestari wrote:
Hello dualism.

I am a trancedential idealist. All perceptions are within a framework of mind, including sense data(physical entities). That is what is physical cannot be argued for as being distinct, that problem has never philosophically been solved. Its just a bold assertion. That we consider common sense. You are over generalizing athiests. I am more what you would call an agnostic. But I think they are really logically equivalant.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:11:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
but I also accounted for dualism. So you are burnt either way.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:46:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dualism would explicitly argue that the mind exists outside the physical plane (nature). Try again.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:50:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 8:10:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:42:53 AM, Mestari wrote:
Hello dualism.

I am a trancedential idealist. All perceptions are within a framework of mind, including sense data(physical entities). That is what is physical cannot be argued for as being distinct, that problem has never philosophically been solved. Its just a bold assertion. That we consider common sense. You are over generalizing athiests. I am more what you would call an agnostic. But I think they are really logically equivalant.

When did I ever make a generalization about atheists? I simply said, "Hello dualism."
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:52:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 8:46:48 AM, Mestari wrote:
Dualism would explicitly argue that the mind exists outside the physical plane (nature). Try again.

What is natural is not only what is physical. GO to school!!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:54:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 8:50:29 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:10:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:42:53 AM, Mestari wrote:
Hello dualism.

I am a trancedential idealist. All perceptions are within a framework of mind, including sense data(physical entities). That is what is physical cannot be argued for as being distinct, that problem has never philosophically been solved. Its just a bold assertion. That we consider common sense. You are over generalizing athiests. I am more what you would call an agnostic. But I think they are really logically equivalant.

When did I ever make a generalization about atheists? I simply said, "Hello dualism."

Mind=/=supernatural. If we are natural and our mind are in us. then it is natural.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:54:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Aka QED
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:00:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 8:52:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:46:48 AM, Mestari wrote:
Dualism would explicitly argue that the mind exists outside the physical plane (nature). Try again.

What is natural is not only what is physical. GO to school!!!

In that case, you commit the fallacy of redefinition. You claimed in your conclusion that the supernatural is beyond logic because it is beyond nature. Logic is necessarily abstract and thus nature's alteration to supernatural, in terms of the abstract and the physical, would not have an effect on logical verification. If we separate the natural and the physical then you commit the fallacy of equivocation as you consider nature the physical world and then define something that exits outside of the physical plane as natural. You can't have it both ways.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:00:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 8:54:13 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:50:29 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:10:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:42:53 AM, Mestari wrote:
Hello dualism.

I am a trancedential idealist. All perceptions are within a framework of mind, including sense data(physical entities). That is what is physical cannot be argued for as being distinct, that problem has never philosophically been solved. Its just a bold assertion. That we consider common sense. You are over generalizing athiests. I am more what you would call an agnostic. But I think they are really logically equivalant.

When did I ever make a generalization about atheists? I simply said, "Hello dualism."

Mind=/=supernatural. If we are natural and our mind are in us. then it is natural.

You assume that our mind is necessarily "in" us and not existent in a metaphysical plane.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:03:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:00:12 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:52:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:46:48 AM, Mestari wrote:
Dualism would explicitly argue that the mind exists outside the physical plane (nature). Try again.

What is natural is not only what is physical. GO to school!!!

In that case, you commit the fallacy of redefinition. You claimed in your conclusion that the supernatural is beyond logic because it is beyond nature. Logic is necessarily abstract and thus nature's alteration to supernatural, in terms of the abstract and the physical, would not have an effect on logical verification. If we separate the natural and the physical then you commit the fallacy of equivocation as you consider nature the physical world and then define something that exits outside of the physical plane as natural. You can't have it both ways.

I didn't see it as that way at all. The argument is plain and simple. Our physical mind results in functions that in themselves may be abstract, but are still based within that which is natural. You could not say that our mind or logic derived from our mind exists without the physical. Therefore, they are based in what is natural and can be said to exist. To state that which is supernatural, i.e. that which is not based in any form of nature, is real is to be mistaken. Especially when our minds, which we've seen to be natural, cannot support that which is NOT natural.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:04:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:00:52 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:54:13 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:50:29 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:10:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:42:53 AM, Mestari wrote:
Hello dualism.

I am a trancedential idealist. All perceptions are within a framework of mind, including sense data(physical entities). That is what is physical cannot be argued for as being distinct, that problem has never philosophically been solved. Its just a bold assertion. That we consider common sense. You are over generalizing athiests. I am more what you would call an agnostic. But I think they are really logically equivalant.

When did I ever make a generalization about atheists? I simply said, "Hello dualism."

Mind=/=supernatural. If we are natural and our mind are in us. then it is natural.

You assume that our mind is necessarily "in" us and not existent in a metaphysical plane.

Can you prove that is exists in a metaphysical plane? As far as can be observed and tested, our minds are dependent on our physical selves.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:06:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:03:21 AM, M.Torres wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:00:12 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:52:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:46:48 AM, Mestari wrote:
Dualism would explicitly argue that the mind exists outside the physical plane (nature). Try again.

What is natural is not only what is physical. GO to school!!!

In that case, you commit the fallacy of redefinition. You claimed in your conclusion that the supernatural is beyond logic because it is beyond nature. Logic is necessarily abstract and thus nature's alteration to supernatural, in terms of the abstract and the physical, would not have an effect on logical verification. If we separate the natural and the physical then you commit the fallacy of equivocation as you consider nature the physical world and then define something that exits outside of the physical plane as natural. You can't have it both ways.

I didn't see it as that way at all. The argument is plain and simple. Our physical mind results in functions that in themselves may be abstract, but are still based within that which is natural. You could not say that our mind or logic derived from our mind exists without the physical. Therefore, they are based in what is natural and can be said to exist. To state that which is supernatural, i.e. that which is not based in any form of nature, is real is to be mistaken. Especially when our minds, which we've seen to be natural, cannot support that which is NOT natural.

Sure, when you frame the argument that way you have more leeway but it still fails. I would say that the logic derived from our mind necessarily exits independent of the physical as it is by definition abstract. You are claiming that the abstractness of logic must be natural because we reason from a natural foundation. The laws of logic are valid regardless of our understanding of them. The natural cannot support the non-natural, but the natural can facilitate and abstract understanding of the non-natural.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:07:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:04:09 AM, M.Torres wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:00:52 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:54:13 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:50:29 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:10:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:42:53 AM, Mestari wrote:
Hello dualism.

I am a trancedential idealist. All perceptions are within a framework of mind, including sense data(physical entities). That is what is physical cannot be argued for as being distinct, that problem has never philosophically been solved. Its just a bold assertion. That we consider common sense. You are over generalizing athiests. I am more what you would call an agnostic. But I think they are really logically equivalant.

When did I ever make a generalization about atheists? I simply said, "Hello dualism."

Mind=/=supernatural. If we are natural and our mind are in us. then it is natural.

You assume that our mind is necessarily "in" us and not existent in a metaphysical plane.

Can you prove that is exists in a metaphysical plane? As far as can be observed and tested, our minds are dependent on our physical selves.

Dependency on the physical plane does not demonstrate existence within the physical plane. Even so, this argument is irrelevant anyways as my previous post solves for the argument without needing to prove that the mind is metaphysical.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:11:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:06:32 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:03:21 AM, M.Torres wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:00:12 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:52:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:46:48 AM, Mestari wrote:
Dualism would explicitly argue that the mind exists outside the physical plane (nature). Try again.

What is natural is not only what is physical. GO to school!!!

In that case, you commit the fallacy of redefinition. You claimed in your conclusion that the supernatural is beyond logic because it is beyond nature. Logic is necessarily abstract and thus nature's alteration to supernatural, in terms of the abstract and the physical, would not have an effect on logical verification. If we separate the natural and the physical then you commit the fallacy of equivocation as you consider nature the physical world and then define something that exits outside of the physical plane as natural. You can't have it both ways.

I didn't see it as that way at all. The argument is plain and simple. Our physical mind results in functions that in themselves may be abstract, but are still based within that which is natural. You could not say that our mind or logic derived from our mind exists without the physical. Therefore, they are based in what is natural and can be said to exist. To state that which is supernatural, i.e. that which is not based in any form of nature, is real is to be mistaken. Especially when our minds, which we've seen to be natural, cannot support that which is NOT natural.

Sure, when you frame the argument that way you have more leeway but it still fails. I would say that the logic derived from our mind necessarily exits independent of the physical as it is by definition abstract. You are claiming that the abstractness of logic must be natural because we reason from a natural foundation. The laws of logic are valid regardless of our understanding of them. The natural cannot support the non-natural, but the natural can facilitate and abstract understanding of the non-natural.

False. Although I understand what you're thinking. You're stating logic is abstract in that in and of itself it has no physical form. But logic does not exist in and of itself. In order to demonstrate logic, one must use concepts that are based in that which is physical. The ideas in and of themselves are obviously non-physical but they only exist in that fashion to demonstrate the physical. For example, we know that abstract concept 2+3=5 is a true statement. But that never changes the fact that we know for it to be true, it must be based on the idea of the physical. 2 apples plus 3 apples are five apples. The concept only exists because the physical can demonstrate it. You cannot make a painting without the paint, and the same is true with logic. If nothing existed, the fact remains that neither would logic. Abstract ideas are still dependent on the physical realm and cannot exist without it. Remove parts, like us, from that realm and logic can still remain. However, if there were no physical realm, logic would still not hold true.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:12:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:07:40 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:04:09 AM, M.Torres wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:00:52 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:54:13 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:50:29 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:10:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:42:53 AM, Mestari wrote:
Hello dualism.

I am a trancedential idealist. All perceptions are within a framework of mind, including sense data(physical entities). That is what is physical cannot be argued for as being distinct, that problem has never philosophically been solved. Its just a bold assertion. That we consider common sense. You are over generalizing athiests. I am more what you would call an agnostic. But I think they are really logically equivalant.

When did I ever make a generalization about atheists? I simply said, "Hello dualism."

Mind=/=supernatural. If we are natural and our mind are in us. then it is natural.

You assume that our mind is necessarily "in" us and not existent in a metaphysical plane.

Can you prove that is exists in a metaphysical plane? As far as can be observed and tested, our minds are dependent on our physical selves.

Dependency on the physical plane does not demonstrate existence within the physical plane. Even so, this argument is irrelevant anyways as my previous post solves for the argument without needing to prove that the mind is metaphysical.

But that's exactly what the supernatural is. If it does not depend on the physical realm nor its laws, then it's supernatural in one form or another. Besides, it still doesn't change the fact that minds are still dependent on physical forms.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:17:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:11:09 AM, M.Torres wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:06:32 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:03:21 AM, M.Torres wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:00:12 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:52:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:46:48 AM, Mestari wrote:
Dualism would explicitly argue that the mind exists outside the physical plane (nature). Try again.

What is natural is not only what is physical. GO to school!!!

In that case, you commit the fallacy of redefinition. You claimed in your conclusion that the supernatural is beyond logic because it is beyond nature. Logic is necessarily abstract and thus nature's alteration to supernatural, in terms of the abstract and the physical, would not have an effect on logical verification. If we separate the natural and the physical then you commit the fallacy of equivocation as you consider nature the physical world and then define something that exits outside of the physical plane as natural. You can't have it both ways.

I didn't see it as that way at all. The argument is plain and simple. Our physical mind results in functions that in themselves may be abstract, but are still based within that which is natural. You could not say that our mind or logic derived from our mind exists without the physical. Therefore, they are based in what is natural and can be said to exist. To state that which is supernatural, i.e. that which is not based in any form of nature, is real is to be mistaken. Especially when our minds, which we've seen to be natural, cannot support that which is NOT natural.

Sure, when you frame the argument that way you have more leeway but it still fails. I would say that the logic derived from our mind necessarily exits independent of the physical as it is by definition abstract. You are claiming that the abstractness of logic must be natural because we reason from a natural foundation. The laws of logic are valid regardless of our understanding of them. The natural cannot support the non-natural, but the natural can facilitate and abstract understanding of the non-natural.

False. Although I understand what you're thinking. You're stating logic is abstract in that in and of itself it has no physical form. But logic does not exist in and of itself. In order to demonstrate logic, one must use concepts that are based in that which is physical. The ideas in and of themselves are obviously non-physical but they only exist in that fashion to demonstrate the physical. For example, we know that abstract concept 2+3=5 is a true statement. But that never changes the fact that we know for it to be true, it must be based on the idea of the physical. 2 apples plus 3 apples are five apples. The concept only exists because the physical can demonstrate it. You cannot make a painting without the paint, and the same is true with logic. If nothing existed, the fact remains that neither would logic. Abstract ideas are still dependent on the physical realm and cannot exist without it. Remove parts, like us, from that realm and logic can still remain. However, if there were no physical realm, logic would still not hold true.

No, you are making a very simple mistake. Just because we only know of the laws of logic because of the physical does not mean they only exist because of the physical. In ancient times we did not know that other planets existed, but that does not mean they did not exist. I would argue that there is an entire realm of abstract laws that we do not know about. Abstract laws do not simply pop into existence when they decide to act on the physical. If the entire universe disappeared, logic would still hold true. Take for example the law of non-contradiction. Something cannot have and not have a quality at the same time. This is a priori through before any consideration of the physical.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:18:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:12:46 AM, M.Torres wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:07:40 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:04:09 AM, M.Torres wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:00:52 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:54:13 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:50:29 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:10:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:42:53 AM, Mestari wrote:
Hello dualism.

I am a trancedential idealist. All perceptions are within a framework of mind, including sense data(physical entities). That is what is physical cannot be argued for as being distinct, that problem has never philosophically been solved. Its just a bold assertion. That we consider common sense. You are over generalizing athiests. I am more what you would call an agnostic. But I think they are really logically equivalant.

When did I ever make a generalization about atheists? I simply said, "Hello dualism."

Mind=/=supernatural. If we are natural and our mind are in us. then it is natural.

You assume that our mind is necessarily "in" us and not existent in a metaphysical plane.

Can you prove that is exists in a metaphysical plane? As far as can be observed and tested, our minds are dependent on our physical selves.

Dependency on the physical plane does not demonstrate existence within the physical plane. Even so, this argument is irrelevant anyways as my previous post solves for the argument without needing to prove that the mind is metaphysical.

But that's exactly what the supernatural is. If it does not depend on the physical realm nor its laws, then it's supernatural in one form or another. Besides, it still doesn't change the fact that minds are still dependent on physical forms.

I disagree that minds are dependent on physical forms. It's an area of knowledge that I would rather not debate without looking through certain chapters in some books, and re-reading a few articles though. If you want to have this debate you can send me a challenge.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:35:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You guys are arguing as if anyone has a clear definition of what "natural" and "physical" are. :p heck, every other naturalist and physicalist has a different definition of the term. If you don't believe me, check out the philosophical literature on the subject. There's huge, long, and technical debates about how exactly to define the terms in a way as to not make the definition neither too conservative nor too liberal.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:41:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:35:03 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
You guys are arguing as if anyone has a clear definition of what "natural" and "physical" are. :p heck, every other naturalist and physicalist has a different definition of the term. If you don't believe me, check out the philosophical literature on the subject. There's huge, long, and technical debates about how exactly to define the terms in a way as to not make the definition neither too conservative nor too liberal.

Granted, but I think the crux of the debate is whether or not an abstract thought stimulated by a physical OR natural body is capable of justifying a supernatural being.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:43:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Supernatural ideology is derived from the human mind.
The human mind is natural.
Supernatural ideology is natural.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:46:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:43:57 AM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Supernatural ideology is derived from the human mind.
The human mind is natural.
Supernatural ideology is natural.

Nobody is talking about ideology. We're talking about plausible proof of existence.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 11:51:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:00:12 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:52:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:46:48 AM, Mestari wrote:
Dualism would explicitly argue that the mind exists outside the physical plane (nature). Try again.

What is natural is not only what is physical. GO to school!!!

In that case, you commit the fallacy of redefinition.

The Fool: No, I did not do any such things; the word nature in natural comes from Aristotle, meaning the essential properties of something. Nowhere does is mean physical. This is what has come to be natural philosophy, and then natural science. There is nothing specific about physical; you have been lied to, by Theologians. Deception sucks doesn't it.

More proof; even if we say that the physical is what is natural, there then would be no reason for the words. But we do know the reasons for the words.

More: Even if we say that physical is natural, we know for sure that it doesn't follow that what is mind is supernatural. So that wouldn't help you either.

More: Also, We never say the mind is not-natural, never ever. And so this wouldn't help you either.

More: Even if we grant the supernatural exist, you still wouldn't be able to claim knowledge of it without of course claiming that you have a supernatural mind.

More: Even the concept of supernatural depends on knowing what is natural first. IF you said it is everything but physical, then you would have to claim we are all supernatural beings.

More: Even if that was granted that we are part supernatural being you would still need to demarcate what the essential different is, without presupposing it.

Mestari: You claimed in your conclusion that the supernatural is beyond logic because it is beyond nature.

The Fool: exactly!

Mestari: Logic is necessarily abstract and thus nature's alteration to supernatural, in terms of the abstract and the physical would not have an effect on logical verification.

The Fool: HA! how does it feel to be fooled by Theologians. Logic is the relations of mind and matter. That is & indicated a conjunctive relationship. (It's really a demarcation) but you don't know the difference right now. Where p->q is a relation of order between ideas or physical nature, And of course (or) is probably taught to you as a disjunction, between two essential properties. (But it's really a dichotomy relation) If these relations where not inherent in nature we could not make any inferences about it, nor could we could we infer cause and effect, nor could we act on it nor could we have computers. Software is all based on logical imprints on physical substance. Check and Mate!

Is this still making sense to you? Or the grammar is throwing you off. <(86) it's all becoming nonsense. Oh no!!

You should think it weird that theologians speak of it differently than Good old Bertrand, Frege, whitehead and Wittgenstein who actually wrote logic they are using. All strictly anti-super naturalists.

Mestari: If we separate the natural and the physical then you commit the fallacy of equivocation as you consider nature the physical world and then define something that exits outside of the physical plane as natural.

The Fool: I have already demonstrated that narural=/=physical. E.g .Cognitive Science is a natural science, and it is the science of the mind.

Mestari: You can't have it both ways.

The Fool: Ha this nonsense has been more than adequately addressed. If you were a philosopher you would know that the name is not what is important but rather the demarcating factor. And that is the problem with supernatural is that there is no demonstrate able demarcation other than simple begging the question.

How about now? <(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 11:57:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Supernatural ideology is derived from the human mind.
The human mind is natural.
Supernatural ideology is natural.

This is exactly the issue, at hand which is the supernatural is only an idea in the mind.

like unicorns. It is a synthesis of adding super to natural. as in a man but then adding the super, as in more then, an now we got Superman. yaaaaaa! is he real too!

This doesn;t say avoid the other the rest of the argument.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 12:00:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wouldn't you consider this to be a logical proof?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 12:12:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah you're totally right because, while I believe I have the ability to view auras, that is not to say what auras are nor the means by which I perceive these auras. Nothing can be proven to anybody if they refuse to see the energy. Now you may argue that there is no energy to see. But I would argue that there is. How would we ever conclude the argument? I could provide demonstrations but ultimately you would have to have the experience to know it exists.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 12:15:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
However, just because these events are scientifically outside an analytical perspective, that is not to say that it is outside of human understanding. Logic, sure i'll give you that. But I understand supernatural events in the same way that I understand and have the ability to feel love and or other emotions.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 12:21:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So my metaphysics transcendental idealism it's a monism. Its best explain as Realist-Idealist.

Not like Berkeley's Idealism. You would have to be well read in the Critique of Pure reason and also be able to patch his arguments

I would argue quite easily that the mind is the primary substance and all else are subsumed in the category of mind, in a hierarchical predicate order.

E.g. Its logical to say a car is Red but illogical say a Red is Car. Aka there is a logical order of predication. And with this I can show that even the concept of God is irrationally predicated.

You are philosophically out of your league here Mestari.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL