It’s a critical question that is existence of natural law a reason for natural legitimacy? This paper intends to show “natural judgment” is not exactly “pure natural sciences judgment”. It is shown that there are some criteria for differentiation between “natural judgments” and “pure judgment”, the first step is to discuss natural data and its system; the next step is feasibility of the judgment. The feasibility performs by “continuous analysis” concept that is somehow “subject-predicate” analysis of the judgment. In the final step it discusses natural judgments system and natural rule: Is there natural rule? Is the world generally legitimate? Discussion about “computability possibility” is vital in all the parts. Therefore, it is expected that discuss “possibility” and “episteme based on statistics” and try to clarify its position; at the end, it discusses that is “possibility” “natural rule” or “rule of the nature”? Altogether, this paper has a logical approach on natural issue because it deals with “natural judgment” with regards to “continues analysis” and our “access rate” on judgment truth, empirical content of judgments and also our relative access to judgment resulted in random and stochastic analysis method. Analytic continuation of “the nature” on predicate and totally on analytic continuation of the judgment reflect the nature. In result, it can offer a parameter as differential factor of “natural judgment” from “pure judgment”.