Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Amos the Prophet

actually it is a simple matter of linguistics and definition: super(above or beyond) + natural = that which is beyond the natural.

the natural sciences cannot study that which may exist beyond the natural.


119 posted on 11/17/2005 10:01:32 AM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]


To: King Prout

When you lump intelligence and design characteristics with the supernatural you are defining terms to fit your preconceived bias. The only way to study intelligence and design is as natural phenomenon.
If you are defining naturalism as only that which is phenomenological you are reject such concepts as mathematics, principles of the physical universe, such concepts as random, and a host of other principles fundamental to the work of sience. You can not pour a liquid into a beaker without relying on nonphenominological reality. Reason, for example, is nonphenomenological but it is a basic component of any science.
You are correct, this is a semantic issue. Unfortunately you have defined yourself out of business.


126 posted on 11/17/2005 11:01:06 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (THIS IS WAR AND I MEAN TO WIN IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson