Mariner

Srap Tasmaner, along those lines, take a look at http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

Sapientia, for there to be equivocation and pretense, there ought to be some incompatibility (or at least some tension) between the Agathon (as a shor...

Maps and territories come to mind.

I'm telling you that I, a Christian, believe in God exactly as was explained above. And I'm 100% Christian, quite traditional in my beliefs. I pray ev...

While to me, what is interesting is how people can react so strongly to the belief in things "which aren't even controversial".

Yes. What you refer to as "reasoning" is the bridge between experience and discourse; the origin is in experience, always in some experience, never in...

I thought that the mention of Shakespeare was clear enough, to the point that this is not what I'm talking about. The intrinsic limits of language are...

Sapientia, our conversation is strong evidence of a related problem, that of the limits of communication. (It is linked but it is not the same as the ...

The salient point is that everyone's got what it takes to understand what theologians are talking about when they talk about God. The obstacles here a...

For some people, perhaps better people, that is relatively unimportant. It wasn't for me, though, and I'd bet that most people who visit philosophy fo...

I would begin by recommending clear and methodical reasoning. (This is not about Sapientia by the way, it is about anyone who asked me how to approach...

Like "American Pie"? Or "God"? Or perhaps you want some other example. Are not two enough? But let's use another, since it is in my mind right now (I ...

Knowing logic, this is not relevant. Whether or not I want myths to be true is not relevant. And whether I want to justify my beliefs is also not rele...

If I were talking about God, I'd have written "God". I wrote "X" precisely because the problem is not limited to theology. We can analyze "American Pi...

Sure. I wouldn't say it is "THE ONLY" answer, though. I would merely say that it is the most complete and satisfying answer, for me; and that it is th...

Yep. Life's tough. :D

Regarding Christianity (this is not so applicable to other religions), the text is quite secondary. The main thing is the experience of Christ's life ...

On the contrary. It was very specific, talking about the limitations of language. Don't you think it is curious that you then ask me to give a... ling...

And if they can, that's also that.

The former. Dawkins' ideas about the matter are evolving in his ripe old age, but age by itself is rarely enough (unless one has many lifetimes availa...

Strangely enough, the idea that myths cannot be true is a... myth. By which I don't mean it is false; I mean it is a foundational story for many group...

If he had a few more lifetimes, or more interest in studying what the major traditions say about God, we could even imagine him saying that he has no ...

It is a pre-socratic argument. Xenophanes, Heraclitus and Parmenides (at least) would vouch for that statement (about how the mythical presentation of...

Atheisms, even serene atheisms, are always phrased as "I don't agree with that". They reject a given linguistic expression. In practice, this is often...

How come no one thought of that before, eh?

Hmmm... nope, no scientific explanation here either. It ought to be easy.

Can you answer my question? Are you withdrawing your criterion, from the OP, regarding how a scientific explanation is a requirement for a true belief...

So what? Many theists support the claim that God exists. Are you withdrawing your criterion, from the OP, regarding how a scientific explanation is a ...

As a scientist, I don't place any weight on unsupported claims.

That is still no scientific explanation as to why we should believe in logic (or care for it anyhow).

Ad populam or ad authoritatem is not a scientific explanation. Nullius in verba.

You may believe so, but you have no scientific explanation for your belief. It is, therefore, false.

An interesting discussion may ensue if you observe that there is no scientific explanation for this either.

You are not acquainted with science, then, if you think "Maybe there is" is a scientific argument.

There is no scientific explanation about the OP, therefore there is no reason to believe in the OP.

Free will is the obverse of determinism. Each requires the other to have any meaning, and we cannot make sense of one in the absence of the other. The...

No, I didn't. But enjoy your thread. If you are happy to discard "supernatural" even while you use the word, I won't hold any grudges.

Well, if you are asking about the idea of "supernaturality", then it has been from the beginning associated with divinity, since deities were pretty m...

No. Supernatural (according to the dictionary, Merriam-Webster for example) is 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observab...

I don't agree with that. Don't agree with that either. Bordering on tautological, so yes, I could agree with that, but I haven't agreed backthread, an...

You are arguing by yourself, since no one here ever disputed this. And I didn't say the definitions of angels and hobbits included the word supernatur...

@Harry Hindu You are arguing against this: When the claim that is being made (in accordance with your proposed definition of nature) is You should rev...

To expound on my earlier answer: "All As are Bs" does not imply that all B's are A's.

Logic.

How do you know that? I'd bet 99.99% of people (including the dictionary, encyclopedias, etc.) would say that dogs have the inherent trait of having f...

No problem with that, but there is also -- as per the definitions you required us to use -- no problem in using the word "natural" to refer to a four-...

Any ethical worldview will hinge upon a conception of the human being. Such a conception underlies any talk of harm or benefit. To use the example of ...

Ok, let's focus on the second definitions. "Nature" is strong on "basic", "inherent", "characteristic". The idea here is to distinguish essential from...

Been there, done that (haven't we all?). But then the best reply is Forrest Gump's: Stupid is as stupid does.

To use your words: Note that the definition of "nature" addresses the "physical world", i.e., it specifically distinguishes the referent of the world ...