Hello Stevesque. I don't mean to muddy the waters here but your definitions seem a little contradictory to me. If we define Nature as- everything within our universe and Reality as- everything that exists. Than how can we have something that exists that is not within our universe? If it exists and it is contained within our universe than by your definition it has to be natural. If it is outside of our universe than we have no evidence for it, nor anyway to aquire evidence for it and to me, should be labeled as imaginary until we are able to properly evidence it. Or at least as an unknown. 'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat' The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
The problem comes from you assuming that if something is outside our universe, we have no evidence for it. But this isn't necessarily true.
What do you mean? How can we have evidence for anything outside of space and time? If any evidence exists it has to exist within our universe so that we can percieve it. In which case it becomes natural. Can you site an example of evidence that we have or could percieve for something that resides outside of space and time?
Edited by rueh, : No reason given.
'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat' The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX