2. Unnatural: that which occurs through agents that exist within the observable world.
3. Supernatural: that which occurs through agents that do not exist within the observable world.[/quote]

Yes. But you seemed to be misreading the purpose of the book example. It was to show how one can rightfully conclude the role of non-natural causes. (This fits within your definitions.) However, when you said

You are clearly conflating the first two categories. Of course, if you are a hardcore determinist, then the second category is empty and this would explain the disagreement of concepts (and we're not speaking the same language).

Your description of "property" implies some form of determinism. Given conditions X you will see result Y. This notion is not sensible in the context of "agency." When you consider the collection of man-made constructions (buildings, vehicles, whatever), you cannot classify them all by saying that they have property X, unless property X is "made by man."

What do you mean by 'caused by nothing'?

I would reject that definition because it doesn't make sense. Nobody ever claimed that miracles have "no possible explanation." By the definition that has been discussed:

Then the objection is meaningless, and I'll move on.

A squid will squirt dye in the water.

Which "objection" is this? I had a fairly straightforward request. It's self-evident that Phenonema X is supernatural or isn't supernatural if the term is "supernatural" going to carry any merit whatsoever. If there is no method (either virtual or real) to determine something like that, then I'm curious why this thread even exists.

This is how I understand things:

You:

Jib:

You:

Me:

You:

Your "request" is what, exactly? To distinguish between your completely arbitrary terms "hypernatural" and "ultranatural"? That's what it was in the first quote.

Then you went on to call the terminology a "gap argument" to which I responded that there's no real "argument" being made, and this is a matter of definition.

Then you are claiming to not be making a distinction between natural and supernatural, and are asking us to do so for you. This is the EXACT SAME PROBLEM that I've been pointing out with Eddi.

All I need to do here is replace a couple words:

Uh huh, uh huh, go on. TD is bringing up the exact same issue, maybe he'll have more luck with getting to you. Or maybe you'll non-sequitur again into what his beliefs are.

If you realize that you don't have a definition and start working on that, we'll have more to discuss.

You're the one who's using those terms, it's your responsibility to explain them.

I've given you multiple illustrations of why it is impossible for you to understand this. I've explained it by analogy and I've explained it from a more abstract philosophical perspective. It is not possible for you to understand unless you allow yourself the chance to build up an understanding from a point of view other than the one that you are holding. Short of that, there is nothing more to discuss.

It is impossible for me to understand smth that you didn't define. Very true.

I'm open to learning. Define and explain away. I will not assume any preconceived notions.

This is false. Here's another analogy:

From naive set theory in mathematics, we define a set to be a collection of distinct objects, which are called elements of the set. We do not define "object" in any sense, which opens the door for Russel's paradox, but we do it this way anyway, and "object" is a perfectly sensible word to use to describe it.


So if you are willing to do it, here's what you need:

1) The physical universe exists.
2) Within the physical universe, there are "natural" causes which are the results of the universe itself, and not that of an agent.
3) "Supernatural being" refers to any agent that is not a part of the physical universe.

Absolutely.

You confused me with #1 already - I assume by "universe" you mean all the stuff around us that we see, smell, hear etc, and positing that that stuff exists seems like a sensible starting point. What does the "physical" qualifier mean?

Given how you have described "universe" you should already be able to know.

Hint: Drop your materialist assumption.

Sounds like a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise
necessary to reach in incorrect conclusion.

Please explain. I don't understand what you're talking about, and I certainly don't know what "materialistic assumption" means (see above premise).

But let's not get derailed into new definitions just yet. How am I supposed to already know?!

That's the nature of a primitive concept.

Hint: I did not define "smell" to you, but you've already used that concept. So you're clearly bringing something to that table.

Sure, I'm bringing some things to the table, to make the discussion shorter. And I'll do my best not to make you define stuff that I think I understand.

But I'm afraid I don't understand what the "physical" qualifier means. That's not a primitive concept for me (is it for you?!), and I need some help understanding it...? Maybe imagine I just never heard the word "physical" if that'll help you with figuring out how to explain it to me.

(and fwiw I'm surprised you don't think that "smell" can be defined or at least explained, but again, let's not get derailed - we can come back to this later if you like)

It's a problem to explain a distinction between two terms?

I can like...read...that I don't make this distinction doesn't mean I will magically be unable to see it if you put it to the pen.

It's not a problem to "explain" the distinction, but it's not possible to "define" the distinction.

Because you have no intellectual category for it, I can only speak in analogies (since these frame the concept in categories that you do have).

A blind man may never experience "red" but this does not negate the existence of "red."

You have defined "universe" in a way that is exclusive to only those experiences that you have had. And unless you let go of that definition, there's no place further for me to go.

Speak and define away, I'm all ears. I can let go of my definition of universe as well. From this point on - I have no clue what either "physical" means or what "universe" means. Proceed.

No thanks. You've shown that you've hit your limit. There is nothing I can say or do to get you past where you are now.

I thought we ruled "it" out a priori (as per the first page says), yet now we are ruling it out because we don't experience "it". Which one is it?

I'll also have to add that your blind/color red example is bizarre coming from a mathematician.

You haven't gotten past your first point, being apparently unable/unwilling to neither explain nor define the words you use, as they are, and I quote, "primitive concepts" and it's ME who has hit the limit? And yet you haven't even TRIED to explain these "primitive concepts", you just keep repeating - "oh you won't get it".

WTF is going on in your head? I expected a lot more from you, this is just sad, you're degenerating into a Pletho-esque approach to things.

edit: Oh, and if anyone else here thinks "physical universe" is a "primitive concept" or is willing to explain to me what it means (assuming that meaning agrees with whatever Aaron means by it) - raise your hand (and start typing)

Hypernatural - that which exists outside both natural and supernatural reality. Ultranatural - that which exists outside natural, supernatural, and hypernatural reality. Can anyone explain why these concepts are not important to consider?

Because there is no reason to differentiate. Nor do they even really make sense. Supernatural is defined as that which is outside of the natural, therefore both "hypernatural" and "ultranatural" would still fall under this category.

This is nothing more than word games to avoid the issue at hand.