The Next Bubble?

A God is part of a "supernatural reality", ....... as is love, faith ........ and any other "emotional states" of one's mind.

How is it possible for it to be "a most natural character" ....... when it is something that "must be learned" ......... before it exists in one's mind?



.

Ziggy,

You're playing a weird game here. It sounds like you not only disagree with me but feel that your argument is so perfect, as is your view of God, that it cannot possibly fail.

All the while claiming that supernatural religions are fountains of intolerance?

What am I missing here?

Even worse, Zig, that your argument is so perfect that it is the "honest" one.

SamCogar wrote:A God is part of a "supernatural reality", ....... as is love, faith ........ and any other "emotional states" of one's mind.

How is it possible for it to be "a most natural character" ....... when it is something that "must be learned" ......... before it exists in one's mind?

Learning is a natural act. It takes place within the minds of natural creatures. There is nothing supernatural about learning- not even about learning to believe in myths, be they myths about a supernatural Santa-Claus or about supernatural gods. But calling those myths any kind of reality, "supernatural realities" or any other kind, is to simply declare myth to be reailty. That is about the same as calling the darkness "supernatural light".

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,
You're playing a weird game here. It sounds like you not only disagree with me but feel that your argument is so perfect, as is your view of God, that it cannot possibly fail.

What am I missing here?

I believe that what you are missing is the plain meaning of words like "natural", "supernatural", and "reality" or "realities". Is it a "weird game" to insist that in using the language we need to allow words and combinations of words their nornmally understood meanings?

What's weird is to suggest that our supernatural explanations of things we do not otherwise fully understand is any kind of "reality". God either does or does not exist. If God exists, it is a part of the natural world- however well understood or misunderstood.

All the while claiming that supernatural religions are fountains of intolerance?

You are assigning someone's elses claims to me. Intolerance is not limited to supernatural religions. Intolerance to blindly accepting someone else's "faith" in explanations that are inconsistent with our existing knowledge and beliefs is nearly universal.

SheikBen wrote:Even worse, Zig, that your argument is so perfect that it is the "honest" one.

It is the "honest" one in that it does not place special weazel word meanings to the language we are using to communicate. Again, to assert that something is a part of "supernatural realities" is to corrupt the meaning of "realities".

If something is a reality, then it is not supernatural. Is that not a honest argument?

Perhaps it is honest, but it is hardly the only honest one. One can just as honestly argue that what we know of reality is not all that there is, and hence the supernatural may exist in the realm of the "real."

SheikBen wrote:Perhaps it is honest, but it is hardly the only honest one.

I do not suggest that it is.

One can just as honestly argue that what we know of reality is not all that there is, ....................

Of course we can. And indeed, I have often argued just that- that just because we do not understand it all doesn't mean that there is any supernaturality to any of it. It just means that we have more to learn.

and hence the supernatural may exist in the realm of the "real."

No. Again, just because we do not understand all there is does not mean that any of it is supernatural. If it is indeed "real", then it is a part of nature- of the natural world / universe. If it isn't "real", then it is only myth and/or superstitution.

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:A God is part of a "supernatural reality", ....... as is love, faith ........ and any other "emotional states" of one's mind.

How is it possible for it to be "a most natural character" ....... when it is something that "must be learned" ......... before it exists in one's mind?

Learning is a natural act. It takes place within the minds of natural creatures. There is nothing supernatural about learning- not even about learning to believe in myths, be they myths about a supernatural Santa-Claus or about supernatural gods. But calling those myths any kind of reality, "supernatural realities" or any other kind, is to simply declare myth to be reailty. That is about the same as calling the darkness "supernatural light".

Ziggy, why in hell did you explain "a natural act" ........ instead of explaining your "most natural character"?

Were you thinking about sex again, ...... or what?

How about lying, ......... is that natural or learned?

.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Perhaps it is honest, but it is hardly the only honest one.

I do not suggest that it is.

One can just as honestly argue that what we know of reality is not all that there is, ....................

Of course we can. And indeed, I have often argued just that- that just because we do not understand it all doesn't mean that there is any supernaturality to any of it. It just means that we have more to learn.

and hence the supernatural may exist in the realm of the "real."

No. Again, just because we do not understand all there is does not mean that any of it is supernatural. If it is indeed "real", then it is a part of nature- of the natural world / universe. If it isn't "real", then it is only myth and/or superstitution.

Hi Ziggy,

Then "natural" and "supernatural" have lost all their meaning. If "natural" is "all that there is," then even a miracle would be purely natural.

How about lying, ......... is that natural or learned?

Both. Learnedness is natural.

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Perhaps it is honest, but it is hardly the only honest one.

I do not suggest that it is.

One can just as honestly argue that what we know of reality is not all that there is, ....................

Of course we can. And indeed, I have often argued just that- that just because we do not understand it all doesn't mean that there is any supernaturality to any of it. It just means that we have more to learn.

and hence the supernatural may exist in the realm of the "real."

No. Again, just because we do not understand all there is does not mean that any of it is supernatural. If it is indeed "real", then it is a part of nature- of the natural world / universe. If it isn't "real", then it is only myth and/or superstitution.

Hi Ziggy,

Then "natural" and "supernatural" have lost all their meaning.

If we accept that there are "supernatural realities", then yes, "natural" and "supernatural" have lost their meanings. That's why I do not accept the notion of "supernatural realities".

If "natural" is "all that there is," then even a miracle would be purely natural.

If it actually happens, then yes, it would be purely natural. Can you give us an example of a "miracle" that is not a purely natural happening?

Ziggy,

I don't get why you're nitpicking over the "supernatural" tag. I don't think he used that word to describe his god etc. That was TerryRC.

You're confusing the hell outta me.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

I don't get why you're nitpicking over the "supernatural" tag. I don't think he used that word to describe his god etc. That was TerryRC.

You're confusing the hell outta me.

Well "DUH", Ziggy threw a spoonful of Jello into the conversation ....... and now he is trying to "nail it" to the wall.




.

You confuse the hell outta me too. I should have been a blonde.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

I don't get why you're nitpicking over the "supernatural" tag. I don't think he used that word to describe his god etc. That was TerryRC.

You're confusing the hell outta me.

Here's how we got started on this, Stephanie:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Terry,

My point is that reality is not subject to the will of the believer.

Then is supernaturalism subject to the will of the believer?

SheikBen wrote:It depends on what you mean. Individual supernatural realities (or lack thereof) are not dependent on the will of the believer.

Sheik put together the phrase "supernatural realities". And I aver that "supernatural realities" is simply a conflict of words- an oxymoron.

He and I have previously had discussions about the character of God- about whether it be a natural or supernatural thing. Unless I misunderstand, Mike has consistently said that his God is a supernatural God. I have likewise insisted that God, as it exists and whatever it be, is part of the natural world. I can accept that the laws of God are the laws of nature. And I do not need to invent or have faith in any supernatural hocus-pocus (or which Mike calls "supernatural realities") to accept the laws of what Jefferson styled "Nature's God".

Another problem with "supernatural realities" is that such "realities" are whatever their inventors say they are. Nature's God, on the other hand, is whatever it is. I agree with whover said that the work of God is the work of nature, and that only through nature is God revealed.

ziggy wrote:
Sheik put together the phrase "supernatural realities". And I aver that "supernatural realities" is simply a conflict of words- an oxymoron.

And just what is concrete about realities?

Do they have substance, mass, shape or form?

Can you see them, ..... touch them, ...... feel them?




.