Religion

eomer

(3,845 posts)

64. My definition of nature was everything that exists, so yes.

Sun May 24, 2015, 08:14 AM

May 2015

It's not clear, of course, what you mean by "things that may not be physical" but if they are things that exist then, yes, they are part of nature.

Our observing or being able to observe isn't required for something to exist. Earth existed before we evolved, before worms evolved. Whatever is inside a black hole and however it behaves - those are part of nature and the laws of nature though beyond our reach to observe. Same for dark matter, dark energy, and other universes in the multi-verse - if they exist they are part of nature. Entangled particles are entangled whether we can figure out how or not.

And, no, I'm not saying I have proof that god could not exist. Rather, I am asking someone to give a coherent explanation of what they mean by god.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

86 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The surprising links between faith and evolution and climate denial � charted [View all] cbayer May 2015 OP

"At the other extreme, meanwhile, is the view that religion has no conflict with science at all." trotsky May 2015 #1

Two arguments from religious dogma expressed by leadership exboyfil May 2015 #2

That is true, but I think the data here is hopeful. cbayer May 2015 #5

"there appears to be far more support for evolution than denial of it" trotsky May 2015 #24

Not sure how the questions were asked, but there are important differences... Buzz Clik May 2015 #3

I would suggest that support for more regulation is even strong than cbayer May 2015 #7

"Surprising"?... NeoGreen May 2015 #4

Here, let me explain. trotsky May 2015 #6

Right, how could I forget Rule #1... NeoGreen May 2015 #8

It's pretty much binary, it appears. trotsky May 2015 #21

Well, I rather like Chris Mooney. longship May 2015 #9

I think the point of this graph is that it shows that there is no cbayer May 2015 #10

But the anti-evolutionists and the climate deniers... longship May 2015 #15

Yes, there is no question that there are religious underpinnings for those cbayer May 2015 #18

I hope you are correct, my friend. longship May 2015 #22

Of course, not all religious people are republicans, right? cbayer May 2015 #23

I don't think the graph shows there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. eomer May 2015 #33

Well, I think we may be saying the same thing. cbayer May 2015 #34

There's a difference between not having scientific proof and being outside of science. eomer May 2015 #38

I agree that there is a difference and I think that somethings cbayer May 2015 #41

Right, we agree on most of this, just not the last part (but that part is critical). eomer May 2015 #42

We will have to disagree. cbayer May 2015 #43

I too like a feeling of mystery but I can get that and still have definitions of science and nature eomer May 2015 #46

I'm not drawing artificial lines around reality in order to get a pleasant feeling of mystery. cbayer May 2015 #51

Okay, but that leaves my point intact, I believe. eomer May 2015 #53

Perhaps it is the definition of supernatural that is the problem here. cbayer May 2015 #54

That definitely isn't the definition of supernatural. eomer May 2015 #56

No, that is the definition and gravity would not fit it. cbayer May 2015 #57

Electricity wasn't ever supernatural, not before we understood it, not before we existed. eomer May 2015 #58

Of course it was not supernatural. cbayer May 2015 #59

No, that's not what I say. eomer May 2015 #60

Does nature include things that may not be physical? cbayer May 2015 #61

My definition of nature was everything that exists, so yes. eomer May 2015 #64

Everyone's explanation for what they mean by god is different. cbayer May 2015 #65

My thesis is actually simpler than yours. eomer May 2015 #66

I don't really have a thesis. That was kind of my point. cbayer May 2015 #67

That's not the more logical position because it includes a word that we don't know what it means. eomer May 2015 #68

You can't reach a logical position if you cbayer May 2015 #69

I can't think of any definition of supernatural that means anything. eomer May 2015 #70

I find it fascinating to see one argue for the existence of something can't or won't define... cleanhippie May 2015 #72

And you reject my definition. cbayer May 2015 #73

I don't reject your definition, it just doesn't get to what I'm talking about. eomer May 2015 #74

Your argument is so circular eomer. cbayer May 2015 #75

No, I just insist that you explain what you mean by supernatural. eomer May 2015 #76

I gave you my definition. cbayer May 2015 #77

Yes, I do think there is a scientific explanation for love. eomer May 2015 #78

Well, if "Your Amazing Brain" says so, it must be true. cbayer May 2015 #79

Oh, sheesh, you really think that's the only source for the science? eomer May 2015 #81

Of course you can. I said i my reply that you could... cbayer May 2015 #82

Okay, we're narrowing down the part that we disagree about (by eliminating some things we agree on). eomer May 2015 #83

I think we can agree on this. cbayer May 2015 #84

Thanks for telling me about that documentary film, I watched it last night. eomer May 2015 #85

I'm really glad you like it. cbayer May 2015 #86

I'm not really interested in a "logical position" when it comes to the supernatural/god question Yorktown May 2015 #80

"A logical position would require using words in a way that they convey some coherent meaning..." cleanhippie May 2015 #71

It doesn't show that at all. gcomeau May 2015 #37

I think this chart is scary as hell. The RcC holds as official doctrine that AtheistCrusader May 2015 #48

I agree that parts of it are scary and it clearly points out where the work needs to be done. cbayer May 2015 #52

Cool chart Gothmog May 2015 #11

Once again we see edhopper May 2015 #12

That's one take away and not a surprising one�.. cbayer May 2015 #13

My brother is sort of Buddhist edhopper May 2015 #14

Of course you are. cbayer May 2015 #16

Kidding asisde edhopper May 2015 #17

I think it's pretty good news, actually. cbayer May 2015 #19

That's the best part. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #49

He doesn't note the color coding, but it is telling in many ways. cbayer May 2015 #55

I think it calls into question the balance. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #62

Yes, the chart does make me optimistic. cbayer May 2015 #63

Gotta love you, Ed. longship May 2015 #20

I share your respect for ed�. cbayer May 2015 #25

OMFG, you are correct. longship May 2015 #26

Both you and ed really keep it civil and stay above the personal attacks. cbayer May 2015 #27

As long as it's not Corona. longship May 2015 #28

I've developed a fondness for IPA's. cbayer May 2015 #29

Hops! That's fine! nt longship May 2015 #30

True edhopper May 2015 #45

Thanks edhopper May 2015 #44

Be aware that "free market fundamentalism" is a dogma, similar to religion. immoderate May 2015 #31

IMO, fundamentalists can be found anywhere. cbayer May 2015 #32

Neat. trotsky May 2015 #35

This post contains another Rob H. May 2015 #39

Oh my, I can't believe I brainfarted on that one. trotsky May 2015 #40

I'd wager the force holding atheists from pegging the AtheistCrusader May 2015 #50

I'll just re-post what I commented there yesterday... gcomeau May 2015 #36

Good Chart. hrmjustin May 2015 #47