What isn't natural?

Cool, case closed. But that is only unnatural, by definition. We, and our consciousness, are still natural in the sense that they aren't supernutral. We're just not natural in the sense that our decision are made by nature, or that what we can create can not come about by nature alone. Well I think that is a shitty definition. It didn't even define the word. Besides, it just looks like mumbo-jumbo to me, it doesn't make much sense. How is the mind bicameral? Couldn't you just replace "the 'voice of God'" with "'nature'" and have pretty much something describing my definition? Artificial is unnatural by definition. Its a way of describing the distinction between things that we have made versus things that nature has made (without us). Religions exist.Also, I could consider the belief in gods natural because it naturally evolved in our species. We didn't create religions by conscious decision, IMO.

CS,OK, I’ll agree that religions exist. But what they stand for does not exist, at least not ontologically.Right now I’m reading a good book on this very discussion topic: “Out of Control/The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World” (1994) by Kevin Kelly, Executive Editor of WIRED. He argues a point I find convincing”that the evolutionary domain he calls “Bios” is seamless and continuous with its corollary “Technos,” both of which are characterized by a kind of emergent property he calls “hive mind.” He sees Technos and just as natural as Bios, while I suppose you might see Bios and natural and Technos as unnatural.”HM

Ontology What do you mean when you say that something does not exist ontologically? Sounds like worthless mumbo-jumbo to me.

If you agree that your comment below, from the other thread; as well as my answer, fit into this discussion (as I believe) then I would love to merge them here...I also appriciate being able to run some ideas by you. I trust in your objectivity far more so than the notably 'Dawkinsian members' of this forum. It is only your wink that makes me suspiscious... Certainly the concepts of truth (as opposed to lies) give some clarity to the question of 'natural' and 'unnatural'.Are lies unnatural? I would have to say so (in the ultimate sense of reality); and that's not touching the moral connotations that I think are actually necessary to make it at all meaningful in the religious sense.Hoot Mon: I am not so sure that he did...After familliarizing myself somewhat with Gdel's two incompleteness theorems (I had not heard of him until you mentioned it) It occurs to me that his theorems fall under the same scrutiny as any other theorem based upon axioms. In other words, 'how can his own theorems that supposedly prove incompleteness be complete'?Is that a valid question/point in your opinion?I haven't mastered the jargon; ie. the continuum hypothesis, candinality, and the other related terms, but I think I already perceive the concepts. It may help if I continue to educate myself as to the words denoting these conepts. Thank you for pushing me in that direction.But in some sense, Gdel's theorems violate the law of non-contradiction, so I do not see how in the slightest manner he could have done away with it.Actually, If I understand what he was saying (which I may not) I think I agree with Gdel... to a degree. He is not all wrong (few of us are).I don't really know what you mean't when you said 'that the law of non-contradiction was a test for "absolute truth"'. I think that all truth must be consistent. But we cannot say that just because a theorem or syllogism is consistent that it is therefore objectively and absolutely true. I have never meant to imply otherwise.What we can say, is that a contradictory statement is false, unless it is qualified in some way that transcends the appearent context.The real problem to me, is that we can know some of what is absolute truth, but we cannot ever know the absolute truth in it's entirety, which leaves us in a position of faith no matter where we stand.If I understand him, I agree with Gdel that nothing can be proven in the ultimate sense (including his theorems). I know in a very amatuerish sense (from trusted authorities) that rationlism has indeed failed. So I assume he was instrumental and am intrigued by your mention of him.Here is where I may make a complet dolt of myself, but it is nonetheless my understanding (or interpretation) of physics:Personally I believe the difficulty of rational certainty, is in the infinite nature of mathematical reasoning (law of non-contradiction). Even though the universe physically consists of a finite amount of energy as per the 1st law of thermodynamics, I believe that energy itself is nothing but mere logic (ie. the mind and wisdom of God) quickening part of Himself into physicality. It's in and of itself, a rather neutral construct. But within that construct, it is possible for a sentient creature to act in a manner that is unnatural or contrary to the meaning and purpose of the construct. That meaning and purpose lies outside the parameters of the construct itself but is inseperable from why the construct exists. It is therefore not a total seperation.So the terms 'unnatural' and 'immoral' are semi-synonymous in my opinion.That is why we find it difficult to comprehend morality in terms of intellect. Morality is ultimately not an intellectual excercize. The unnatural... far from being so in purely material terms because of the constructs relative neutrality, is unnatural in a higher sense of violating the meanings and purposes for which the physical construct exists.Furthermore, I think of the different properties of certain atoms, and their immaterial nature (sub atomically) as being formed by the immense speed of thier properties. A kind of force field (elecromagnetic from what I understand) is made, repelling certain other kinds of matter, and attracting other elements.So, I think we are correct in attempting to understand the physical world with mathematics (ie. the law of non-contradiction) but we can never fully equate the picture since it's basis is found in an infinite mind. So we ultimately have to rely desperately upon the rock of logic by faith as valid, but only part of the total equation.Does that make any sense to you?This understanding that mathematics (logic/ law of non-contradiction) has it's limits is intruguing. Appearently King David knew this before Gdel:Psalm 119:96 To all perfection I see a limit; but your commands are boundless. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Rob, risking the wrath of an Admin who needs to blow his/her whistle for off-topicism, I would suggest looking at Gdel's "undecidable propositions" this way, as Douglas Hofstadter does (in "Gdel, Escher, Bach." p. p.17): "All consistent axiomatic formuations of number theory include undecidable propositions." Hofstadter uses the Epimenides paradox as an approximate literary example: "I am from Crete, and all Cretans are liars." (John Lennon said it another way: "This is not here.") Therefore, nonsense can attend an otherwise correctly formulated proposition.What Gdel did was to prove his point mathematically, which means that any notion of "absolute-ness" in mathematics can be now dismissed as "undecidable." King Dave may have had a clue, but those bicamerally hallucinated commands got the best of him”they placed boundaries on his pre-emergent consciousness.”HM

My suggestion to you? Eat a lot of bran and clear your afternoon for a little time on the porcelain throne.You're going to need the room - Rrhain is about to crawl right up your ass for your unapproved philisophical musings on Godel's incompleteness theorem.Just sayin'.

My dear mr. crashfrog has violated ever decent principle of these EvC forums. Won't that hurt like a barbed-wire colonoscopy?Furthermore, are we all ready now for the amphibian version of Gdel?”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

By delivering a friendly and jocular warning? Nonsense. Have you ever read his posts? I think perhaps you misunderstood. You're not about to get anything from me. I could care less what you do with Godel or anybody else.But Rrhain is as predictable as Old Faithful, and if he gets wind that you've invoked Godel, he's going to cruse in here to make sure he approves.It's just a friendly warning.

Hoot Mon: I think I explained why... at least hypothetically? Right? No?Let me get this straight... He proved?... MATHEMATICALLY... That MATHEMATICS doesn't decide here?If math is not absolute, then why did the ataomic bomb work?I think Godel was a brilliant philosopher on the order of David Hume. They are the pea-palmers that jar sees everywhere but where they are.But... maybe Dameeva and all of the other New Age Pantheists are right... we create our own reality?But if that's the case, I don't understand why Jim Beam let me down. I'm confused... It's just too much for me man!Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Have you read Gdel? Or Hume? Any other brilliant philosophy?Just curious. My impression from your posts is that you have familiarized yourself with what apologists say about philosophy and science, not the material itself.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Archer: Not very much...What does that have to do with anything?Archer: Oh I have... you're right! And I agree with them. Do I not make my understanding clear by asking relevant questions?Why don't you answer one of the one's I asked Hoot Mon, like 'If math is not absolute, then why did the Atomic Bomb work'?In my first response to him, I showed that I agreee with Godel to a point...There is a back door in our thinking (logic) be it mathematics or any other applied philosophical analysis. We can never fully wrap up the situation. God has reserved the right to omnipotence for Himself.And for that I am eternally grateful. You can claw and spit at me, but you can never catch me while I am in His arms for He sustains me... If all of this metaphysics is unnatural nonsense, then you should be able to show that easily enough. But you will only be making a metaphysical statement like Hume.Thank you for your questions...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

CS wrote: Santa Claus, Tinker Bell, and the Easter Bunny do exist ontologically”they have no empirical being-ness. God fits in there, too. But genes, populations, species, and biospheres are all naturally ontological, like rocks, stars, and gravity. And I suppose "transubstantiation of the Eucharist" is worthwhile mumbo-jumbo?”HM

Rob asks: If God is absolute, then why does he let mosquitos bite His true believers?”HM

Hoot Mon: It shows nothing of God's absoluteness. It just shows our non-absoluteness.The richness and harmony of the ecosystem is fallen Hoot Mon. We do not live any longer in the 'true natrual order' of things. We decided a long time ago to question it's beauty, and listen to another voice that said God is holding out on us, and that we ourselves can become God.Perhaps mosquitos didn't bite men and women in the garden. But we don't live there any more.The fact is, whether Mosquitos bit humans or not I don't know -everything has changed and natural selection proves that. But the order is devolving, not evolving.If you're asking why God does not preserve his people then you are asking the right question. Many of the Psalms and Lamentations are devoted to that question. The answer is ultimately the Ressurection.If we had to live side by side with 'completely real and perfect people' like the Risen Lord, we would die. Just think how annoyed we are already when around people who are healthier than we. Their innocence and childishness is revolting because we are corrupt.

Hoot Mon: Rob: You're probably right. One summer long ago at a YMCA camp in Michigan we did an experiment. One cabin of ten boys sat outside in a circle without their shirts on and prayed to God that the mosquitos would not bite them. Another cabin of ten boys sat outside in a circle without their shirts on and didn't pray for anything, they just sang "A Hundred Bottles of Beer On The Wall."After one hour of this we all went inside and counted our mosuito bites. What were the results? Mosquito bites all around”those little dipterans cared neither for God nor for statistics, and drinking songs made no difference either.”HM