>>13905263> As I said, you assume that humans can sense all that would be defined as "nature," when it is not even a question that isnt true. Anti-empiricism.
>We know for a fact bats can use sonar to see, we know for a fact that dolphins can too we know for a fact pigeons can see 100's more shades of color than we can and that snakes and other animals can use thermal imaging. You have no idea what aspects of "nature" they can perceive that we cantHard problem of consciousness. Phenomenology. Argument from ignorance with respect to phenomena.
> So if humans cannot even perceive all of what is defined as "nature" how in the fuck can you claim God is not part of it?Anti-reductivism. Relevance of theology.
In summary, the core of your argument may be distilled to: "The problems of empiricism, the hard problem of consciousness, phenomenology, human ignorance with respect to phenomena and the limitations of reductionism make the Supreme Being relevant."
> "The problems of empiricism, the hard problem of consciousness, phenomenology, human ignorance with respect to phenomena and the limitations of reductionism make the Supreme Being relevant."To confirm, is this your argument?
