Here is a question I asked in the Science section and a response that I liked the best. Agree or disagree?
February 15th, 2010 | by admin |My question:
Isn’t the Universe and Nature the same thing? If so, then isn’t Nature and Reality the same, also?
Answer from David S.:
"Why does existence exist? Because no alternative was ever possible.
Why does the universe exist? Alternatives were possible.
Therefore, existence and the universe are not the same concepts. The universe is a special instance, a subset, of existence.
Nature is the way things work under the composite influence of all natural laws through all levels of emergent properties. Reality is the outcome of these workings. If there are several universes, then the nature of each may differ with the nature of others and the reality in each will therefore also differ with the reality of the others."
I would like responses from Christians, atheists, etc.
I’ve enjoyed considering your question this morning. It’s an interesting adventure to research the multiple dictionary definitions of the key words in your Q. and I think language here is important. The word "nature" for example has at least 10 different definitions one of which may very well be the "universe". Lets consider the most common understanding for the word "universe" first. If it is "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm." then the universe does have a nature which encompasses all of nature or all things that exist in nature (an example of different but distinct meanings of the word "nature")
Being a theist, I take the time to note here the importance of affirming the understanding that the universe (as defined above) would allow for the consideration of the existence and nature of a being outside of space (or time) The universe exists in time and space that is part of it’s nature, it can say nothing of whether or not existence is possible outside of time and space. It rests on the physical and can say nothing of the meta-physical.
As pertains to your question; "Nature is reality" is in a sense true, as nature "the universe" is real, and exists in time and space, but to assert (as your question may imply) that all reality is encompassed in nature, or limited to the confines of space and time, like the universe is, can not be argued with certainty. If "Supernaturality" does exist, and is reality, it’s nature would be "to be outside of nature"
Post script; Re; "Natural Laws" I was constantly thinking in answering this how I might incorporate Aquinas’ teaching on Natural Law into my response. I recommend researching it a bit if the question of the existence and legitimacy of meta-physical truths like objective moral values can be argued with validity
10 Responses to “Here is a question I asked in the Science section and a response that I liked the best. Agree or disagree?”
By Cooley on Feb 16, 2010 | Reply
agree
References :
By zero on Feb 16, 2010 | Reply
Sounds reasonable to me.
References :
By Dogstar on Feb 16, 2010 | Reply
Are you implying that the people who reply in the Science section aren’t christians, atheists etc.?
References :
By labowu on Feb 16, 2010 | Reply
Semantics? To me there isn’t a difference in the terms. The response you’ve listed is eloquent but really seems to be splitting hairs.
References :
By toogethr on Feb 16, 2010 | Reply
Nature, or "the universe" are what exist.
Reality is a concept that we humans invented which refers to our perception of nature or the universe.
We like to think that our perception of the world and how the world actually is are the same. They aren’t necessarily. For example at one time we believed our perception of the universe was accurate yet we didn’t know anything about cosmic rays, now we do.
As science and critical thinking progress toward a better understanding of the universe, our perception of reality and how the world actually is gets closer and closer.
References :
By Veritas on Feb 16, 2010 | Reply
Assuming alternatives are/were possible, this is a good answer. However if there was only one option, one universe, then it would be synonymous with existence and therefore nature. Now as for ‘reality’, thats a whole different question.
Reality is mostly a subjective model created in the brain from the very limited sensory information taken in by the brain. What is really ‘out there’, is beyond our scope of understanding or comprehension. So reality may not be the same as existence.
References :
By Caitlin on Feb 16, 2010 | Reply
yes I agree. Many scientists essentially say the same thing.
References :
By EscapeBlade on Feb 16, 2010 | Reply
I definitely agree.
References :
By jtrusnik on Feb 16, 2010 | Reply
I agree with how he differentiated the words. I usually define reality as the collection of all existents, but his definition ends up meaning roughly the same thing.
References :
By Dear Dogma on Feb 16, 2010 | Reply
I’ve enjoyed considering your question this morning. It’s an interesting adventure to research the multiple dictionary definitions of the key words in your Q. and I think language here is important. The word "nature" for example has at least 10 different definitions one of which may very well be the "universe". Lets consider the most common understanding for the word "universe" first. If it is "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm." then the universe does have a nature which encompasses all of nature or all things that exist in nature (an example of different but distinct meanings of the word "nature")
Being a theist, I take the time to note here the importance of affirming the understanding that the universe (as defined above) would allow for the consideration of the existence and nature of a being outside of space (or time) The universe exists in time and space that is part of it’s nature, it can say nothing of whether or not existence is possible outside of time and space. It rests on the physical and can say nothing of the meta-physical.
As pertains to your question; "Nature is reality" is in a sense true, as nature "the universe" is real, and exists in time and space, but to assert (as your question may imply) that all reality is encompassed in nature, or limited to the confines of space and time, like the universe is, can not be argued with certainty. If "Supernaturality" does exist, and is reality, it’s nature would be "to be outside of nature"
Post script; Re; "Natural Laws" I was constantly thinking in answering this how I might incorporate Aquinas’ teaching on Natural Law into my response. I recommend researching it a bit if the question of the existence and legitimacy of meta-physical truths like objective moral values can be argued with validity
References :