Do you agree with the statement "for a thing to exist, it must conform to the natural order of the universe"?

You are correct.

But I would not have said "order" even before I read Gazoo's answer--and I think he knew he was misinterpreting the context of the word.

It makes more sense to say that nothing which does not follow the laws of physics--whether we understand them or not--cannot exist, because we at least know enough logic to be able to say that if a thing does NOT follow the laws of physics it CANNOT exist.

That does not apply to "concepts" except in the sense that there are also the physics of the brain, which controls the mind, and that it is free to create any concept it wishes--but it can't form that into reality until and unless it has enough knowledge to do so.

For example, a philosopher said you can't hear a human voice over the distance of 1/4 million miles. And yet we heard the voices of the astronauts on the moon because we learned the physics of radio waves. It was a "concept" to put men on the moon hundreds of years ago.

If the "supernatural" exists, then it must necessarily follow the laws of physics, also.

You have a choice. Either the universe is orderly or it isn't orderly. Just because we may not always model natural processes accurately is not a reflection on the order in the universe. There has been remarkable successes in modelling the universe mathematically in the sciences. Their predictive capability is quite striking, but the point at which we learn the most is where the predictions fail and we need to revisit the models.

An alternative view of things would be that the universe does not have any natural laws and largely what we see is coincidence.

Both of these are a question of philosophical choice, however the science based mathematical approach has a lot of merit for largely pragmatic reasons.

Whether something's existence depends on its conforming to a "natural order of the universe" really depends on whether the universe is all that there is. For example, were you a character in a book you could phrase this question, but the readers of the book would note the irony of such a question as they would know (or think they know) the truth of your circumstance and the reason for your asking.

Therefore I disagree with the statement made on the basis that we lack compelling evidence. We cannot make a confident assertion there is nothing outside this universe beyond what we are able to perceive nor provide compelling evidence for such an assertion.

Sure. But don't forget how we perceive the universe - logic and reason. The natural order is in fact an element of reason, not of the universe. Some other life forms might conceive of it differently. You get that in math if you go far enough. You discover that the Real Numbers which we all use, to perfectly good advantage, are only one way or ordering. Turns out it's not actually necessary to be able to count at all, as counter-intuitive as that sounds.

So yes, when we discover something that contradicts our conception of the natural order of the universe, then something is, de-facto, wrong with our conception of the natural order of the universe.

Which makes me wonder why everyone is so nonchalant about the logical paradoxes you see bandied around here and other places. How can there be even one? Isn't that like a fire alarm for logic? I think it is and I am just stunned that everyone isn't running around trying to figure out how these things can exist.

I don't necessarily have an opinion about what the "truth" is, but I would disagree that this statement should be logically accepted as absolute truth. The statement seems to imply the assumption that "the natural order of the universe" is fixed. Example:

"If a thing seems to violate the natural order, then it simply means that our understanding of the natural order is incomplete and has not entirely accounted for the observed phenomenon. "

But what if the "nature" of the universe changes or is changing constantly, even if subtly? Yes, this may seem like a contradiction of what we consider to be the "nature" of something. But in this case we are talking about the incomprehensible "unknown" and something has to give that violates our ideas of order and chaos. Perhaps the observed phenomenon would not have existed in the old universe but since the universe's nature changes there is new observable phenomenon. At this point, it may not be clear which one is doing the conforming- the object or the universe's nature. It is also not clear whether they are even independent of each other.

The logic in suggesting this possibility is that at some point something had to give where the universe either sprang from nothingness or else it must have always existed.. Neither one is truly comprehensible as our minds perceive only the finite. So,for this defiance of logic to have occurred, or continuously occur, it would seem logical that there would be further defiance of logic within the true "natural order" of the universe.

To attempt to conceive of the universe as ordered or chaotic would require a full understanding of the universe. To attempt to understand if or how things conform to the natural order of the universe would require a concept of what "order" means in the context of a universe whose existence laughs in the face of logic.

Do you agree with the statement "for a thing to exist, it must conform to the natural order of the universe"?

~~~ Everything exists!

There are no requirements or preconditions for existence, that is schizophrenia!

Schizophrenia is the fragmenting of that which is One!

There is One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Reality!

The entirety of the Universe, ever, is Nature!

Everything perceived is 'natural', other than to the judgmental insanity of the imagination!

The Universe IS 'natural order!

"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole.." - Rene' Guenon

Existence = the complete Universe = Nature = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = Love = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....

ALL INCLUSIVE!!

'One'!

I disagree. Your definitions are too vague, and there's waaaay too much "wiggle room" to make it mean whatever you want.

For example, a "concept" is little more than an idea, and can easily violate what we currently accept as the "laws of nature". If concepts were not allowed to do that, people would not be able to think up and consider radical new explanations for how the universe works, would not be able to conceive of ways to test them, and we would be unable to learn new things that alter our understanding of natural processes.

I think your question answers itself. If something is perceived to exist is has to conform to whatever laws of the universe that exist to allow existence to take place. How can it be otherwise? Your right in saying our ideas of laws are limited, because they are. We act like we know, when its more than obvious we have barely scratched the surface.

Like that Fox show "Cosmos" That show is educational, but it really says a lot of things as statements of fact when they are anything but. Stating ideas as if they are true. That's not science. Thats when science and religion meet. Because now belief comes into play. (Sorry for the rant...that show peeved me as well as entertained)

Agree, because regardless of all speculative ideas, there must be a Substance having existence in and through itself, independent of our human cognition of it. Who can deny a deterministic materialist reality? If reality is not that way, than the world would be irrational, and all cognition without a foundation in reality. It is because the order and connection of objects outside our thinking of them exist that we can adapt our minds to a rational worldview. If quantum mechanics were true, and by inter-relational connection, the ideas of David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and the Heisenberg/Bohr school of thought, then we would never have any other ideas than the ideas " having cash-value" in a "free " market of ideas, and the scientific conclusion would be irrational and contradictory set of these "ideas". Which is what seems to be the basis of the ruling class in todays world of capitalist prison houses of nations. Dialectical materialism is rooted in the Marxist conception that reality is knowable because we can adapt our minds in the order and connection of our ideas to a reality that is matter in motion and having formal essences and historical modular modifications that truly exist in a infinite and eternal Nature that exists.

True, the problem is we don't fully know or understand the nature of the universe

Since concepts are the product of a brain, yes, I'd agree. Until proven otherwise.