17Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRather than what's traditionally taught, could man have made God(concept) in his image? If so, wouldn't the transitive property imply that we created ourselves? (Paradox?)
July 1st, 2013, 10:04 PM
Rather than what's traditionally taught, could man have made God(concept) in his image? If so, wouldn't the transitive property imply that we created ourselves? (Paradox?)
Ya think?Originally Posted by Dreamraider
Are you referring specifically to the abrahamic tradition? If not, perhaps it would be clearer to readers which cultural/religious mythology and/or traditions you have in mind.
White people usually see God, and Jesus, as being white...
Yes, abrahamic. They seem more widespread.
(Fify.) Most definitely. Who else's image could man use, unless man wished to worship an animal god.
No! Elements "a" and "b" are not related, That would be like saying the invisible and the visible are the same, one is but an imagined concept.
We just evolved, no paradox there. Evolution is why man exists at all.
Wouldn't that make Abrahamic god just a twisted form of humanism? It essentially rid western civilization of Animal gods, unless you count Angels.(Fify.) Most definitely. Who else's image could man use, unless man wished to worship an animal god.
How so! Humanism is a completely different thing entirely, humanism isn't a religion to start with. Humanism simply states that man looks after himself and his fellow man and doesn't look to an imaginary concept for help.
Why is that relevant? People can believe in whom or what they wish, it doesn't make their beliefs true in any way, shape or form. At the moment on British TV there is a woman who believes she can converse with Flies. Go figure. People can and will believe in crazy outrageous things.
My son michael joined the peace corp, went to the amazon basin of Ecuador. We went to visit him and 'his' village. Their concept of the devil was a tall white guy with a beard. I had raided goodwill, and brought down toys and tennis balls for the children. They took one look at me and ran away screaming.
(sigh)
Reason is god's worst enemy. You are not helping fictional matters of the spirit.
Is the abrahamic genre/account more valid than other traditions for any particular reason other than being "more widespread"? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at different traditions found worldwide instead?
There are accounts far older than the abrahamic genre, and not all of them depict their deities in humanoid form. There are even other traditions that describe them (deities) as anthropomorphic; ascribing emotions such as anger, jealousy, delight, and even humour to their behaviour. With so many cultural/religious belief systems both past and present, it would be a flawed approach to focus on a single tradition whilst ignoring the rest.
Does your cultural upbringing subconsciously instill the more popular tradition as a default setting when wondering about "god"? I've once replied KALSTER's "Misconceptions made by..." thread earlier this year with the following; perhaps it might shed some light on why I said what I did then.
Some misconceptions or mistakes I've personally encountered online by those who hold an athestic stance often (either consciously or unconsciously; and as a byproduct of their culture and their limited exposure other religions/theistic belief systems) have a specific range of religions in mind when they speak of their atheism. And that seems more often than not; to be the abrahamic religions; the monotheistic variant. If religions are fruits, and the abrahamic genre are oranges; the manner in which they speak often gives me the impression that the only fruit they can think of are oranges. Gone are the apples, pears, and grapes, etc from how they formulate the way they both think and speak. It is either oranges or there are no fruits.
How odd.
Why on earth would Isaiah 1:18 be in the bible, Torah, and Koran (google it in king James)- all those years of Sunday brainwashing have finally payed off.
I choose to view it as a religious natural selection. Setting the scene: we all spread out from some part of east Africa, essentially finding different people,animals, and things to mindlessly worship. Over centuries; wars, famine, migration occur forcing humanity to adapt (in some cases to survive) which dropped certain religions while extolling others. In 2013, we have lost the majority of our original religions. Some become more dominant which give us the big three(Islam, Christianity, Judaism)and a few less dominant religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, legalism, etc... If you choose another way of validation beside population, you might use influence which would still give you the same list.Is the abrahamic genre/account more valid than other traditions for any particular reason other than being "more widespread"?
Because they copy each other. look up Mithra. look up the epic of gilgamesh and then tell me you don't see any similarities. It's just one religion copying or following on from the other, there are after all 38.000 different version of Christianity, is it really that hard to comprehend why they are similar.
Isaiah 1:18
So too in islam, "GOD" made us thinking animals so that we could reason.Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord
Worst enemy? perhaps, only for the narrow minded? Perhaps, reason is the ultimate key to understanding.
Why waste it on negatives?
you misunderstand my point. That verse was referring to the post made by Sampson on reason. - I believe the consensus on abrahamic religions is that the three main versions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, hit a fork along the road Judaism was following. Christianity went left, while Islam bloomed to the right. Judaism just stayed as it was, unable to make a decision.Because they copy each other. look up Mithra. look up the epic of gilgamesh and then tell me you don't see any similarities. It's just one religion copying or following on from the other, there are after all 38.000 different version of Christianity, is it really that hard to comprehend why they are similar.
As I understand it, the religiosity of converted adherents depends on the (for lack of a more appropriate word) appeal, if not, the indoctrination of a belief system should adherents be born into it culturally. Former adherents who had left their religions do so because it no longer holds any appeal to them (from what I am able to gather).
Since that is the case, the appeal or influence these traditions hold over their numbers isn't the most suitable means of evaluating the validity about the claims they make. I tend to view it as how popular and appealing a particular sport matters to fans of them. Soccer to my knowledge is currently the most popular sport in the world, but that does not make it more valid than other sports played both past and present.
Validity in the context of this thread requires us to look beyond a single tradition even if it is currently the most dominant. Are the claims of the abrahamic tradition any more valid than the hindu tradition? Or are they both equally (in)valid?
I'm curious, how do you determine validity, and validity in what context?As I understand it, the religiosity of converted adherents depends on the (for lack of a more appropriate word) appeal, if not, the indoctrination of a belief system should adherents be born into it culturally. Former adherents who had left their religions do so because it no longer holds any appeal to them (from what I am able to gather).Since that is the case, the appeal or influence these traditions hold over their numbers isn't the most suitable means of evaluating the validity about the claims they make. I tend to view it as how popular and appealing a particular sport matters to fans of them. Soccer to my knowledge is currently the most popular sport in the world, but that does not make it more valid than other sports played both past and present.Validity in the context of this thread requires us to look beyond a single tradition even if it is currently the most dominant. Are the claims of the abrahamic tradition any more valid than the hindu tradition? Or are they both equally (in)valid?
In a discussion or contemplation about a deity (singular) or deities (plural), to evaluate which the many traditions both past and present are (more?) valid requires us to put them all equally side by side to determine which can present more compelling evidence if belief is to be expected. If either side can provide equally compelling evidence for belief, then they are equally valid. If neither side can provide sufficiently compelling evidence for belief, then they are equally invalid. The appeal, indoctrinativeness, or influence of numbers by a tradition isn't the best way to do this, because it relies heavily on preference (for appeal) and/or susceptibility (for indoctrination).
This is one of the reasons why I asked what makes the abrahamic tradition more valid than other traditions found across the world; both past and present. More valid in that the abrahamic tradition being the only one considered when thinking about god(s) and "made in who's image".
One is only fooling themselves when they try and pull a single verse out of the context it was written in order to back a flawed agenda. They are double fooling themselves when pulling it out of a religious book. If you want to educate yourself go read the Book of Isaiah...or at least the chapter 1 , then you will realize the fool you have made of yourself. Then, you may one day recognize,not one god has ever made anything without the imagination of mankind. What are we talking here, ...reality or fairytales? ...............................................Nar row minded? Well it is your call, it was a Martin Luther quote. The whole quote,Isaiah 1:18
So too in islam, "GOD" made us thinking animals so that we could reason.Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord
Worst enemy? perhaps, only for the narrow minded? Perhaps, reason is the ultimate key to understanding.
Why waste it on negatives?Is the mother of all IRONY that Martin Luther considered Reason an enemy.“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
what you say is true, in a logical world, but we do not live in that world. We are arguing about the Abrahamic gods on their territory. Every verse is irrevocable and holds truth independently as well. (God's holy word clause)I trust that you've sat through at least one half wit sermon? Preachers throw around disembodied references left and right . (Divine interpretation)One is only fooling themselves when they try and pull a single verse out of the context it was written in order to back a flawed agenda. They are double fooling themselves when pulling it out of a religious book. If you want to educate yourself go read the Book of Isaiah...or at least the chapter 1 , then you will realize the fool you have made of yourself. Then, you may one day recognize,not one god has ever made anything without the imagination of mankind. What are we talking here, ...reality or fairytales? ..............................................Narr ow minded? Well it is your call, it was a Martin Luther quote. The whole quote,Isaiah 1:18So too in islam, "GOD" made us thinking animals so that we could reason.Worst enemy? perhaps, only for the narrow minded? Perhaps, reason is the ultimate key to understanding.Why waste it on negatives?Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LordIs the mother of all IRONY that Martin Luther considered Reason an enemy.“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
[QUOTE=Dreamraider;436370][QUOTE=sampson;436368]Hmmm... I do not have the cerebrum switch to disconnect (as the duck says). I am forced to live in the logical world. As Scooby has told you, one can not study the Geologic history of the Grand Canyon by only analyzing the Kaibab Limestone top layer.what you say is true, in a logical world, but we do not live in that world. We are arguing about the Abrahamic gods on their territory. Every verse is irrevocable and holds truth independently as well. (God's holy word clause)I trust that you've sat through at least one half wit sermon? Preachers throw around disembodied references left and right . (Divine interpretation)
I feel sorry for God if it looks like me, poor ugly bastard.
Mix you and me and all the fugly bastards on this planet, and you'll get what gods image actually is. Frightening!
As far as I know, no God has ever talked to any human. But if I was a God, I'd probably use a human avatar to help facilitate communication with humans. Only makes sense. But would I choose just a few humans to deliver my most important message about how all humans can save their immortal souls?That doesn't seem reasonable as any God would know, humans are not very reliable and most of them lie about many things everyday and they die after a relatively short life.
Again if I was the God to all humans, I would make sure each and every human knew me personally. Knew what I expected of them and how I want them to live their lives.
Well I've never had that conversation with a God, and neither has anybody else I know.
IMHO: The concept of an interactive god that participates in the lives of (wo)men is insanity.
By extension, those who (have) claim(ed) such interaction/communication are also insane.
(but, then again, I could be wrong)
Someone is wrong ...or insane. Either you or Robot, ...or the popes, bishops, and cardinals John Paul II on brink of sainthood after second miracle approved, report says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) There really is no doubt which.
Hell man, I talk to "GOD" on a regular basis
but then again, I just may be insane, (I also talk to myself, but neither me nor "GOD" talks back)
and the pope is employed by millions of loonies
If you gotta be nuts, it's nice to be able to make a living at it
That's a supposition on your part.
actually, just a subjective activity
if
I thought "GOD" was hanging on my every word, that would be a supposition
No, it's a supposition.
You may well be talking, but you're just assuming that there's a god and that he's listening.
actually, I make no such supposition
I started yelling at god as a spoof
and found it fun
so
i ofttimes make weather recommendations
and the often "thanks for another great day"
though a theist, i have no expectations of interaction
If "GOD" is listening, I just may have pissed her off, but I ain't gonna change based on fear
(this ain't gotta make sense to you)
hell man, i ain't got a logical justification, for my art nor for my actions as/re "GOD"
I do it because I like to do it
Oops, supposition again.
You weren't yelling "at god", just yelling.
subjective!
If i refuse to define "GOD" then supposition is meaningless
I also talk to the clay when I'm sculpting/modeling
Do I expect an interaction?, or just a reformulating of expectations?
I always expect the clay to do what my hands force upon it. When I tlk to the clay, I am indirectly talking to my neural connections to my hands.
Sometimes, the hands do their thing with little conscious input(and that is where art is born). I imagine what i want to see, and they facilitate the desire. Sometimes it just ain't working like I want it to, and rather than talk to my neural pathways and muscles controlling the hands, I talk to the clay, demanding it's cooperation. or asking it what it has in mind. I do not think the clay thinks. It is mearly a way for me to understand what is happening. The best communication happens when I stop demanding communication and just be--in the moment--no thought--no control, and yet completely in control.
"GOD" is an understanding of proclivity toward pattern. When I feel the pattern, all makes sense and yet no sense is made.
This is something that eludes description. Ergo always the quotes "______ " fill in the blanks as your heart dictates.
Do not do it with the "conscious" mind. Just do without doing!
Which god do you think you were talking to? Now, question yourself as to why you chose that particular god out of millions. It will be interesting to see if the new pope buy's the fraud. He should label it as what it is, a fraud, the action of greed to take advantage of the gullible. If he goes along with this, then he will become the top dog and the most guilty. Meanwhile 25% of the world population cheer the shamanism on.
The pope is the head of a church which comforts the dying and cares for the sick. He has a demanding position as a ceo of a multinational collective/Which god do you think you were talking to? Now, question yourself as to why you chose that particular god out of millions. It will be interesting to see if the new pope buy's the fraud. He should label it as what is, a fraud, the action of greed to take advantage of the gullible. If he goes along with this, then he will become the top dog and the most guilty. Meanwhile 25% of the world population cheer the shamanism on.
I may deride the collective from time to time as I eschew the concept theism through an established clergy. I think they have found a way to comfort their fellow man. But think no intercession between man and "god" is meaningful as an understanding of "god", and may well actually preclude that understanding.
When I "talk to god" I am not talking to anything that you would imagine as "god". It is an idiosyncratic communication between me and my inderstanding of that which I see as "god" which eludes definition.
Hell man, If I could explain it, I'd write a new "bible" and let future generations debate the words.
I find it entertaining that the word "Bible" comes from the greek word biblos, which is from a city of the jews' long time enemies(phoenecians-philistines). Kind of a peculiar irony there.
And speaking English.
What language does a dead pope speak when asking god for miracles? The vatican cult shamans speak to the dead in what language? Why do other gov'ts tolerate this primitive BS from the vatican, when any other gov't would be laughed out of existence? Saint my @ss.And speaking English.
its a matter of relativity, since they look at most modern sciences the same way you described their "cult".What language does a dead pope speak when asking god for miracles? The vatican cult shamans speak to the dead in what language? Why do other gov'ts tolerate this primitive BS from the vatican, when any other gov't would be laughed out of existence? Saint my @ss.And speaking English.
No, they don't. They (the vatican)take full advantage of modern science. Look at the popemobile. They know that their god that they lie can cure the ill and make saints can not protect them from bullets.its a matter of relativity, since they look at most modern sciences the same way you described their "cult".What language does a dead pope speak when asking god for miracles? The vatican cult shamans speak to the dead in what language? Why do other gov'ts tolerate this primitive BS from the vatican, when any other gov't would be laughed out of existence? Saint my @ss.And speaking English.
there is a clear difference between engineering and modern "science".here is some work by an acquaintance of mine. Engineering Is Not Science - IEEE Spectrum. Show the pope some cloning, GMO (s), stem cell research, gene splicing between humans and animals, a star system farther than six thousand light years away, the true fossil record, etc... ,and he will have a "holy" seizure. Hell, his whole cult won't touch anything by Dawkins, let alone Darwin.No, they don't. They (the vatican)take full advantage of modern science. Look at the popemobile. They know that their god that they lie can cure the ill and make saints can not protect them from bullets.its a matter of relativity, since they look at most modern sciences the same way you described their "cult".What language does a dead pope speak when asking god for miracles? The vatican cult shamans speak to the dead in what language? Why do other gov'ts tolerate this primitive BS from the vatican, when any other gov't would be laughed out of existence? Saint my @ss.And speaking English.
Why do atheist feel this almost constant need to discuss "GOD" and Religion?
Maybe it's akin to old men talking about sex?
Source please... :P
Im not sure if that's a reference to me, Dawkins, or Darwin. As for me, I consider myself an agnostic. After reading some of Dawkins' work I'm pretty sure it's an envy. He seeks the bliss of ignorance religion causes, but is too enlightened to take part in it. It's a sort of , "if I can't have it, most of the population shouldn't either".
Is that "request" your concept of humor?Source please... :P
Most threads on atheism I've seen have been opened by theists wanting to bash atheists.
Perhaps it was too highbrow for you.Is that "request" your concept of humor?Source please... :P
I admit it is one of my favorite subjects to "deep" discuss with a knowledgeable religious person. Probably two reasons, 1) It is illogical, yet so many have fell and continue to fall for the hoax. It would shock you, and you will not believe me that a high % of religious leaders will admit to that under questioning. A lot are in it for the easy money. 2) Having studied the human nature of the subject for 50 odd years, I know a great deal about the subject, and get a mental rush from the exercise. However sex, tennis , and fishing, are better.
fersure dadioPerhaps it was too highbrow for you.Is that "request" your concept of humor?Source please... :P
if'n y'all didn't see it in the myriad threads on the subject in these forums,
then, yeh, fersure dadio, way over my head.
---------------------- it has been said that "GOD" createn man in "GOD's" own image
and i always add
Man, completely incapable of understanding 'GOD" created gods in man's own image.
---------------
I consider myself a theist, and have been called "a sacriligious son of a bitch" by a baptist chaplin whose faith i challenged.
As sampson has indicated, many of the clergy really do not have faith in their professed/professional faith.
All that aside, IMHO the question remains unanswerable if only viewed by the logic of the conscious mind.
I too, enjoy watching the philosophical discussions, and appreciate the peculiarity of certain responses to certain points within the discussion.
thanx
No worries - I didn't realise that you have....problems.
In future, I'll dumb it down even further for you.
As you like.No worries - I didn't realise that you have....problems.
In future, I'll dumb it down even further for you.
dumb it down. intillectualize it up. humm it or sing it, rant and rave, or sit in the mute silence of awe
You'll never be able to communicat that which is incommunicatable.
But, go ahead and try anyway.
You'd have to show that there is a god for this to be true.
no
this is a science forum
You must prove the null hypothesis
jeez dadio
follow the bouncing ball wouldja
Sheer nonsense.
There's a claim implicit in your statement - that claim being that god exists.
It's on YOU (having made the claim) to support this.
implicit? fersure in your warped egomaniacal mind \
Let us examine the claimed above-------placed back in context for those interested in truth and accuracy.
What I actually keyboarded in:
Has it not indeed been said that "God created man in GOD's own image?it has been said that "GOD" created man in "GOD's" own image
and i always add
Man, completely incapable of understanding 'GOD" created gods in man's own image.
Is it not also true that man has created "gods' in man's own image?
If anyone in here is capable of understanding "GOD", or the concept "GOD";
let him speak now or forever hold his speech.
Wherein the above does your warped contrarian mind find fault?
Yes:
For something to be understood (or even require understanding) it first needs to exist (in some form or another).Man, completely incapable of understanding 'GOD"
I've already pointed out the fault: god has not been shown to exist.Has it not indeed been said that "God created man in GOD's own image?
Is it not also true that man has created "gods' in man's own image?
If anyone in here is capable of understanding "GOD", or the concept "GOD";
let him speak now or forever hold his speech.
Wherein the above does your warped contrarian mind find fault?
If there is no god then he/ it/ she/ whatever doesn't require understanding.
You are still making broad assumptions to what it is that you thought I had keyboarded in instead of actually taking the entirety of what it is that i am communicating into account.
Perhaps, that suits your arguementative nature. Or it may just be a really warped style of non communication.
The problem arises that if we do cherry pick partial communications and focus our(your) feeble intellects on those bits and pieces, You essentially end up argueing with your own fantasies.
Where, exactly did I ever claim that your perverted concept "GOD" actually exists?
You seem to have a ready made definition of that which you would consider "GOD"
Perhaps, then You are the one(and only) human who actually understands "GOD" or the concept "GOD".
Which I doubt.
So, as I understand it, You have created some concept called "GOD" which you then deny the existence of.
Are you not, in so doing creating an internal mentalmasturbatory game wherein you are arguing with yourself?
And seemingly haveing some perverted desire to get me involved in your internal arguement> caveat--I only have a bachelors degree in psychology.
If you would stylize yourself as an atheist. Follow through with that self definition, and be completely without "GOD"s.
In your speech, in your keyboarded words, and in your thoughts, You betray yourself by creating then denying your own fantasies.
Included among which, are your fantasies of(and about) what it is that my words actually signify.
If you would seek "GOD" start by throwing out any of your prejudiced concepts of "GOD".
or
wallow in your delusional fantasies to your mind's contentment.
..................................
In all likelyhood:
No matter what definition you can come up with for your concept "GOD", I would deny the accuracy of your definition.
That being said:
define away and let us wander down this thorny path, hand in hand and mind to mind.
Then you should express yourself with clarity.
Let me try again:Where, exactly did I ever claim that your perverted concept "GOD" actually exists?
You seem to have a ready made definition of that which you would consider "GOD"
For something to be understood (or even require understanding) it first needs to exist (in some form or another).
Wrong again.So, as I understand it, You have created some concept called "GOD" which you then deny the existence of.
YOU put the word "god" into your sentence.
And your point here is...?If you would stylize yourself as an atheist. Follow through with that self definition, and be completely without "GOD"s.
Oops, wrong.In your speech, in your keyboarded words, and in your thoughts, You betray yourself by creating then denying your own fantasies.
There you go again: this presupposes that there is a god to search for 1.If you would seek "GOD" start by throwing out any of your prejudiced concepts of "GOD".
And that has yet to be shown.
Oh, by the way:
What makes you think that no one understands the concept of god?If anyone in here is capable of understanding "GOD", or the concept "GOD";
let him speak now or forever hold his speech.
Especially since, evidence to the contrary lacking, that concept is entirely a human construct.
1 Unless, of course, you're prepared to grant that it's a wild goose chase...
How about: an as yet (despite millenia of claims) not shown to exist supernatural entity, supposedly (according to some believers) responsible for the creation of Earth, life and much else.
Believed in, to varying degrees, by many, with not one shred of actual evidence to support those beliefs.
perhaps, just a tad vague?much else
Nice diversion...
I don't have a concept of god - all I'm going on is publicly-stated stated claims.
------------publicly
There was a rather peculiar fellow many years ago, who wore off-white robes and stood on a wooden box haranging passersby to repent and save their souls.
OK so you formulated your concept/opinion of "GOD" from the public ravings, of whom, may I ask?
....................
incidentially, I've never bought into the "supernatural" rap.
I woul'd invision(if anything) something more closely described as "supreemly or pithily natural".
..............
as/reNeither you nor I am/are the final arbiters as to what does or does not exist. Of which, I've adapted a rather insouciant approach(as, I believe so should you as/re "GOD")For something to be understood (or even require understanding) it first needs to exist (in some form or another).
...........
as/re:I have yet to find a definitive declaritive concept with which I concure.What makes you think that no one understands the concept of god?
I think the early TAOist had something close. And, have an as yet undifferentiated notion that one understandable aspect would best be defined as a proclivity toward pattern.
And another diversion.
Ah right.incidentially, I've never bought into the "supernatural" rap.
I woul'd invision(if anything) something more closely described as "supreemly or pithily natural".
And you got this from... where, exactly?
BTW, inventing your own terminology - "supreemly or pithily natural" - doesn't help your case. WTF does that actually mean?
Bullshit.Neither you nor I am/are the final arbiters as to what does or does not exist. Of which, I've adapted a rather insouciant approach(as, I believe so should you as/re "GOD")
YOU have made claims about "god".
For these claims to have ANY validity then this "god" thing has to be shown to conform to these claims.
So what?I have yet to find a definitive declaritive concept with which I concure.
Your particular interpretation doesn't appear to tally with the generally accepted ones.
Bearing in mind, of, course, that neither your version nor the "regular" one has yet been shown to exist.
So what?I think the early TAOist had something close. And, have an as yet undifferentiated notion that one understandable aspect would best be defined as a proclivity toward pattern.
You persist in making claims (however vague) about god, yet have not shown that either A) this god exists nor B) that it actually matches your claims.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; July 10th, 2013 at 04:02 PM.
you do understand the word "pithy" ?
You do know you're talking bollocks?
I'll ask again:
BTW, inventing your own terminology - "supreemly or pithily natural" - doesn't help your case. WTF does that actually mean?
Last edited by Dywyddyr; July 10th, 2013 at 04:31 PM.
I invented none of those words dadio
honest
But, I am literate
and, it means precisely what it means.
shall i rephrase?
bear in mind that any rephrasing diminishes the breadth and depth of the original.
Think that all is at its' core and origins and proclivities and evolution of/for and within all of reality including nature.
Using meaningless words like "supernatural" is the hallmark of a lazy mind.
Of course, you could find something, anything that you could describe as supernatural,(but, you'd of necessity be wrong)
because
We are all natural, each and every deluded one of us is natural. How then can we supersede that essential nature into the silly concept supernatural?
Is not all(including our thoughts, language, maths, etc...)derived from nature and thereby natural?
So too our religions.
Magic only seems magical to those who are ignorant.
Ah, sorry, I didn't realise that your comprehension was so poor.
I asked about the terminology, not the individual words.
Given your numerous misspellings, lousy punctuation/ capitalisation and contorted usage of English I'm not sure.But, I am literate
I'll try again.and, it means precisely what it means.
What makes it anything other than "merely" natural?
If it's anything OTHER than "merely" natural then, by definition it's supernatural.
In other words what the f*ck does "supremely or pithily natural" mean?
Please do so.shall i rephrase?
Will it reduce the inane meaninglessness?bear in mind that any rephrasing diminishes the breadth and depth of the original.
What?Think that all is at the core and origins and proclivities and evolution of all reality including nature.
Could you employ your literacy and rewrite that in English?
Oh wait, you may have rephrased something, but you certainly haven't rephrased your meaningless term "supremely or pithily natural".We are all natural, each and every deluded one of us is natural. How then can we supersede that essential nature into the silly concept supernatural?
Is not all(including our thoughts, language, maths, etc...)derived from nature and therby natural?
So too our religions.
Magic only seems magical to those who are ignorant.
...says Humpty Dumpty.
lol
as/re
In other words what the f*ck does "supremely or pithily natural" mean?
again, a simplified rephrasing loosing much of the meaning
"of necessity, natural" and the fountainhead of nature, and beyond perceived nature in an all inclusive embrace of all that we do know and all that we do not know. But not in the least defined by the meaningless word "supernatural".
how about using supercalifragilisticexpialidocious instead of supernatural?
.......................
spelling, caps, punctuation etc... yeh yeh yeh, ain't none of that my strong suite.
live with it or put me on ignore.
Please stop using this non-literate and pretentious "phrase".
Er...and beyond perceived nature in an all inclusive embrace of all that we do know and all that we do not know.
Bullshit.But not in the least defined by the meaningless word "supernatural".
Supernatural:
Adjective
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
How about you learn English?how about using supercalifragilisticexpialidocious instead of supernatural?
In other words literacy isn't your strong "suite".spelling, caps, punctuation etc... yeh yeh yeh, ain't none of that my strong suite.
Oh, and neither is grammar.
Regardless, there's just as much evidence for "supremely or pithily natural" as there is for the supernatural.
One meaningless invented term is just as good as another. (Except that the one-word variant is more readily fitted into context).
Please support your claim.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; July 10th, 2013 at 05:54 PM.
beyond the laws of nature
ok
name one
name something
name anything that is beyond the laws of nature
Smaug.beyond the laws of nature
ok
name one
name something
name anything that is beyond the laws of nature
purely natural
air inversion trapping polutants whether they be natural directly from nature or man made(another form of natural)
Oh, you missed the point.
Again.
YOUR OWN DEFINITION equates to exactly that:
You: beyond perceived nature
Definition of supernatural: Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding
How does your "supremely and pithily natural" differ from actual nature?
By requiring (or being given) a different definition.
If it's natural it's natural.
If it's anything other then it's not f*cking natural.
Ergo supernatural.
And, by your own "logic" 1 doesn't exist.
1 Well, half of it anyway - you persist in arguing two mutually exclusive positions at the same time (on more than one subject).
And since when has that been part of the definition of 'supernatural'?
"Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature..."
Nope. No mention of requiring it to be natural.
You wanted an example of something supernatural.
I provided one.
I misunderstood your reply.
Last edited by RedPanda; July 10th, 2013 at 07:13 PM.
Aaahh...yes. I think you're correct. I hadn't realised.
I just thought his second sentence was another of his elaborate 'typos'.
Maybe Smaug was too esoteric......despite the book being translated into 40 languages, sold over 35 million copies and been made into 4 films.
yer right
I had thought he misspelled smog
what is smaug?
is not "scientific understanding" increasing exponentially?
so todays "beyond"
is tomorrows old hat
Is the internal combustion engine supernatural?
It was once beyond scientific understanding
The word was linked. Read that link.
And the relevance of this would be... what?is not "scientific understanding" increasing exponentially?
So what?so todays "beyond"
is tomorrows old hat
Your claim stated specifically beyond perceived nature.
The definition of supernatural gave beyond scientific understanding.
Going further, are you now claiming that science will understand (or even verify the existence of) god?
Er, if there had been an internal combustion engine available before there was any scientific explanation of it were possible then it would have been regarded as supernatural. For the simple reason that is would have been (one more time) beyond scientific understanding.Is the internal combustion engine supernatural?
It was once beyond scientific understanding
And STILL waiting for you to support your claim...
Are Dywyddyr's links not good enough?
Is Google broken?
naw
just finding it difficult to actually care enough to take the link
............
ok curiousity got the better of me
a fictional character
(sigh)
is fiction un-natural?
Last edited by sculptor; July 10th, 2013 at 08:59 PM.
Go to bed - your comprehension is deteriorating rapidly.
yeh
dream of something, anything that violates the "laws of nature"
lemme know if you find one
ouzo might help?
Smaug is a supernatural being.
Smaug fits the definition: "Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
There is no part of the definition that says "It must exist."
Smaug.
Last edited by RedPanda; July 11th, 2013 at 06:11 AM.
Moderator Pre-warning: Several posts in this thread are verging on containing or being ad hominems. Please tread carefully. Sculptor and Dywyddr, this means you.
So, red, even if intended as a fictional creation for the entertainment of children a story can have "supernatural" characters.
So too the assumed fictional personalities presented on these forums?
Whereas, I had assumed the position that all creations of "natural" beings, by being derived from nature would be natural.
It seems that we have come back around to "gods" created in man's own image, which would then be naturally supernatural.
The imprecision of the language ofttimes astounds me. Naturally un-natural, supernaturally natural, un-naturally supernatural, supernaturally un-natural...etc...
Jeez
Once again, it would seem that perspective rears it's ugly head delinating realistic fantasies from fantastic realities.
This horse may not be dead, but it certainly is covered with flies and stinking to high heaven. Maybe we should stop flogging it?
If they fit the defintion of 'Supernatural' then yes. Of course.
If they fit the defintion of 'Supernatural' then yes. Of course.
Seriously, have you still not read the definition of 'supernatural' yet?
It has been posted many times.
Are you still unable to grasp its meaning?
Where does it say that supernatural beings MUST exist?
So, since Smaug was created by a (natural) man, you think that a fire-breathing, 400 year old, jewel encrusted, talking dragon is also natural.
Only if you intentionally equivocate on the meaning of the word 'naturally' - which is seems you do.
It would probably help if you were literate.
So, you think that dragons are realistic, do you.
If you are so bored of being wrong, then why don't you stop?
I keep reading this and I've come to the conclusion that my browser is suffering some sort of glitch.
It's apparent that Sculptor is replying to a post that isn't available to me.
If someone would do me the favour of quoting the post that Sculptor is referring to (since it has zero relevance to anything that I can see) I'd be grateful.
PS I'm not ruling out the possibility that Sculptor is replying to a post or point that's only visible in his own head, but I thought it worth asking...
duck
did you not get the memo?
you were supposed to "clean it up"
(no, duck, it ain't your browser, it's your brain)
follow the bouncing ball would'ya
red
I do not actually beleive smaug exists beyond the realm of fiction and story telling
which segues us into the position duck will find comfortable as regards "GOD"
(psst, that's why I eschew definitions, excepting potential views of proclivity toward pattern)
Last edited by sculptor; July 11th, 2013 at 01:50 PM.
Your reply barely makes sense and in no way addresses my post.
Your grasp of English is as tenuous as your grasp of reality.
lol
makes no sense to you?I do not actually beleive smaug exists beyond the realm of fiction and story telling
hahahaha
You are one funny dude. You know that?
Last edited by sculptor; July 11th, 2013 at 04:18 PM.
Your reading comprehension is as poor as your reasoning.
all right
"barely makes sense"
still
You are either an idiot(which I doubt)
or
You are being really silly in your arguement.
Hell man, a gradeschooler could understand.
zing
I know.
But you seem unable to.
I guess you just hate been wrong.
You wanted an example of something supernatural.
I provided an example.
Nothing you have said in anyway invalidates my example.
Smaug is supernatural.
No-one said he does.
This is just something you've made up.
This is you trying to change the definition of 'supernatural'.
If you have a reason (apart from denial) to not accept Smaug as being supernatural then perhaps you could post it.
Which aspects of the "fire-breathing, 400 year old, jewel encrusted, talking dragon" do you think are natural?
red: you seem to think that feigning ignorance is your best form of argumentation.
You wrote:I answered in the negative"you think that a fire-breathing, 400 year old, jewel encrusted, talking dragon is also natural."
You wrote:For your argument to work, you need to define a fictional character as "some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature""Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
That is silly.
Do us both a favor and stop pretending that you are stupid, ignorant and lacking a memory.
"force"
Noun
Strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement...
You are using a fictional force for a fictional argument.
ergo
You are one funny dude dadio.
(meaning--"not to be taken seriously")
If silly and irrelevant is your personal goal, congratulations you have made it.
Sorry RP, you're on your own.
I can only take so much dumb in any given week and that limit's been reached.
It appears that Sculptor is arguing simply to avoid accepting (or, perhaps, realising) that he's completely lost the plot.
Got some bad news for you Sculptor...
I would never have known that. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You see, that's the trouble with deliberately choosing to write in a pretentiously incomprehensible style: your answer may be incomprehensible. Stop acting like an immature art school dropout and write properly. You have demonstrated that you are quite capable of doing it, but you apparently prefer your affected style because it demonstrates how "creative" you are. If so, stop whinging when people are unable to make sense of your gibberish.
Or, in a form you might prefer:
as/re
u truble
---
its ... "art"
see
(-- man)
GROW UP.
bye duck
you will not be missed
Strange
I write as the subject matter dictates.
This ain't science
this is a rambling meandering silly journey into philosophy.
when I stated that I responded in the negative please reference:
aboveI do not actually beleive smaug exists beyond the realm of fiction and story telling
I don't understand why/how that would confuse anyone!
"gods in man's own image"
c'mon
seriously
If you prefer science please see the environmental issues, anthropology, and earth sciences threads.
There a few questions which I had posed therein which remain unanswered.
I could use your keen mind.
this crap is just an idle passtime
Last edited by sculptor; July 11th, 2013 at 06:45 PM.
| « so i'm probably going to die within one year | Religion and War » |
| Tags for this Thread |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
