[extropy-chat] Re: Re: John Wright Finds God

[Samantha Atkins]

Obviously such a definition of nature is not what those who speak of
the "supernatural" have in mind.  So it pays to ask.

-s


On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:07:28 +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well if we define nature as all that exists, then the supernatural
> does not exist. The validity of this statement has nothing to do with
> belief, only with grammar and logic.
> Or, as I prefer to think, nature includes supernatural in the sense
> that what science cannot explain today will someday be explained by
> tomorrow's science. Including things that we cannot even begin to
> imagine and can only define as supernatural at this moment. There are
> more things in Heaven and Earth...
> G.
> 
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:11:28 -0600, john-c-wright at sff.net
> <john-c-wright at sff.net> wrote:
> > With no trace of irony, Mme. Yudkowsky writes
> > >Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists.
> >
> > The argument that, since there are by definition no supernatural events, ergo
> > all reports of supernatural events must be false, is circular. Real skeptics do
> > not take conclusions as articles of faith.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>