Where do you see a flaw in the logic? — Samuel Lacrampe
Premise 1: God is traditionally defined as 'that which nothing greater can be conceived'. You can look it up; I did not come up with the definition.
Premise 2: No effect can be greater than its cause(s). This is a principal in causality. If you object, you would need to find an exception to this principal. — Samuel Lacrampe
no effect can be greater than its cause(s)' — Samuel Lacrampe
1. In Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End". God himself says he is the first cause. — Samuel Lacrampe
God is traditionally defined as 'that which nothing greater can exist'. Combine this with the principle that 'no effect can be greater than its cause(s)', and we deduce that the first cause is that which nothing greater can exist, and therefore the first cause is God. — Samuel Lacrampe
...the inherent feature of some thing is that it has four-legs... — Harry Hindu
...thean inherent feature of some thing is that it has four-legs... — Harry Hindu
Because we share ideas. I can have the same idea in my head as you without you communicating it. Why do you think people congregate into like-minded groups that use the same language as others in different groups? Isn't it because they have different ideas than those in another group, but the same ideas as the group they associate with? Conservatives and Liberals both speak English yet congregate into different groups. How could that be, if we only think in words and not ideas?If "the idea in someone's head that triggered the use of the word is what the word means," how can this be shared? — Srap Tasmaner
So, prior to typing something on the screen, you don't have an idea composed of a visual of how things actually are, and then use that idea to come up with words to communicate that idea? Are you seriously saying that the only thing that comes to your mind is words that get typed out on a screen? Are you a computer or a human being? You have an idea AND you have the intention to share that idea. The only way to share it is through language. If you had no intention to share it, you'd still have the idea, and the idea is composed of visual imagery of some state-of-affairs that you intend to communicate, not words.Maybe you mean something different by "the idea in someone's head" than I think you do. (I think of that as, more or less, "what comes to mind," when you hear a word.)
By "the idea in someone's head," do you mean an intention of theirs? (The intention to speak, to communicate a thought, to be understood to be attempting to communicate--there are lots of intentions.) — Srap Tasmaner
The structure AND meaning of the word, "supernatural", shows that it stems from the world, "natural", which means that it is dependent upon the existence of the natural, which means that the natural came first and then the supernatural. — Harry Hindu
I see your point. We just need to differentiate between the epistemological order and metaphysical order of the two words. Epistemologically, we humans first experience the natural world and then may call some things supernatural when these don't behave as per the laws of our natural world. — Samuel Lacrampe
Every religious person would disagree with you. They would insist that God and his domain existed prior to the natural world and that the natural world was an effect of the supernatural world. As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, the meanings are backwards.Metaphysically however, the supernatural is the cause of the natural, and thus existed prior to it. Sure, you can switch the labels around if desired, as long as the definitions are clear to everyone. For practical purposes though, I would stick to the conventional definitions. — Samuel Lacrampe
The only thing I'm arguing for now, because you seem to have given up on the primary discussion of "supernatural" vs. "natural", is that things have more than one inherent feature. Period — Harry Hindu
We are now in agreement that four-leggedness isn't an inherent feature of dogs because it's not in the definition... — Harry Hindu
We are also in agreement that to define something properly, you need to include ALL of it's inherent features or qualities... — Harry Hindu
We are in agreement that an inherent feature of all things is that they possess more than one inherent feature or quality that distinguishes it from some things — Harry Hindu
(Whew!) Now that's over with, what were you saying about "supernatural" again? — Harry Hindu
If that is your answer, then I obviously didn't understand your point you were trying to make when I asked you why angels are supernatural and hobbits aren't. You asked me to look at their definitions but neither definition explains why angels are supernatural and hobbits aren't. It's not that I have to read more carefully, it's that you have to do a better job of making your point. So maybe you might care to be less vague.I'll stick with "you have to read more carefully", given your interpretation of what I agree with. — Mariner
The origin of Hobbits has not been explained so that makes them supernatural, no? — Harry Hindu
Wait a second, are you even reading my posts? — Harry Hindu
Are you agreeing at all with what I said about your mother,
about typing words on screen,
and all those other questions I asked?
Do you think that you are the only one that can ask questions and receive answers? If you expect me to answer questions, you need to do the same.
What made you say, "I have to be at work by 2:30 today."?
Why are you saying it?
Isn't it because there is a state-of-affairs that needs to happen in the future?
Isn't it a prediction that you are referring to?
After all, there could be an accident on the way to work and you could be late. How is it that you could be wrong about being at work by 2:30 that doesn't have to do with how you used your words?
Of course they do. Hobbits existence beyond the visible observable universe, don't they? Where have you seen a hobbit, or a devil, for that matter?No. Supernatural (according to the dictionary, Merriam-Webster for example) is
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
Hobbits fall into none of these possibilities. — Mariner
I'm operating with the concept of "supernatural" which involves how others in this thread have associated "supernatural" with things that haven't been explained, or are unexplainable.Note that you are operating with a concept of "supernatural" which involves "the origins of", something which is clearly not present in the dictionary definition. — Mariner
Hypocrisy. Did you not point out that because "supernatural" wasn't part of the definition of "hobbit" then hobbits aren't supernatural? The definition of "supernatural" you provided doesn't include the term, "birth". Whose definitions are we sticking with here, Merriam-Webster, or making up our own?To recap (since my first post in the thread): natural pertains to birth. Supernatural pertains to what is beyond and above the realm of birth. This is the originary meaning of the word. — Mariner
No, no, no, no. It is you that needs to read more carefully. I have said numerous times and you have simply danced around it, that the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is meaningless when you define them both has having a causal relationship with each other. God, a supernatural thing, after all, is the ultimate cause. Everything that follows would be supernatural as well. So, reality itself is supernatural. The only problem is that we have this term, "natural" which seems to imply that the natural existed prior to the supernatural and the supernatural is dependent upon the existence of the natural. Please stick to this particular point. Either way, one of these words loses it's meaning. Which one do we stop using?What matters for our discussion (which has been going round and round): is the supposition that "nothing supernatural exists physically" (i.e., that everything that exists in an observable, physical sense is natural) enough to suggest that we should stop using the word "supernatural"? — Mariner
So, then hobbits are supernatural? The discussion going around in circles is the result of your inability to remain consistent. The word, "supernatural" was used in an effort to get an clear-cut definition nailed down - something you have yet to do.Curiously enough, since the word has just been used by you in reference to the unknown origin of hobbits, you have just confirmed the point being made all along -- "supernatural" as a word performs a useful role and hence should be kept, regardless of whether supernatural beings exist physically. — Mariner
So in all the eternity before the creation of the natural world, the gods, angels, devils and spirits never communicated the idea of the reality in which they live among themselves before the creation of a natural world? How do you know that?It is obvious once you think of it, there can't be language referring to the supernatural before there has been a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, and this distinction will always take the form of a retreat of the gods, since the original viewpoint of mankind was one in which deities interacted with non-deities constantly. — Mariner
Of course it's a biggie because it shows that your words refer to other things, and that is what you mean when you say them. I should just drop the microphone here, but I'll indulge you a bit more.Yes, I believe I experienced my mother before I learned the word "mother." (I don't know why you would think I had claimed otherwise, but no biggie.) — Srap Tasmaner
Then what are you talking about when you say or write anything about some state-of-affairs that exists?Here I disagree. I'm not aware of having "an idea composed of a visual of how things actually are" before I speak, or write, except when I'm trying to describe something I'm imagining visually. — Srap Tasmaner
I don't ask rhetorical questions. They may seem obvious but some people tend to ignore the obvious, which is why I ask the questions. Some people don't take into account how their ideas have implications on the simplest things.I honestly thought some of them were rhetorical, and I'm still not sure which is which. — Srap Tasmaner
No offense. English is my native language.What made you say, "I have to be at work by 2:30 today."?
We don't know. There are quite a few possible scenarios. For the record, I would take "what made me say it" as something different from "what I meant by it," which is in turn different from "what the sentence means."
Why are you saying it?
Also don't know, and now we can add "why I said it" to that list. These things are all different to me.
Isn't it because there is a state-of-affairs that needs to happen in the future?
Maybe? That's an odd way to put it. It's also possible that I was lying when I spoke, which would change "why I said it" but not "what it means."
Isn't it a prediction that you are referring to?
I really hadn't thought of that one. It doesn't sound like a prediction to me. I would have assumed most English speakers would hear "I have to be at work by 2:30 today" as expressing an obligation. (For comparison: "I will be at work today by 2:30" I would hear as a prediction, or more likely an expectation.)
[As an aside, and I sincerely hope you don't take offense here, but may I ask if English is your native language? I only ask because I might mistakenly rely on our hearing things the same way, and if we don't there could be needless misunderstanding.] — Srap Tasmaner
Hypocrisy. Did you not point out that because "supernatural" wasn't part of the definition of "hobbit" then hobbits aren't supernatural? — Harry Hindu
The only time I used "supernatural" is to ask what it means and to show that it's meaning, as provided by you and others, is inconsistent. If you can't define it clearly, then why use it?If you are happy to discard "supernatural" even while you use the word, I won't hold any grudges. — Mariner
Well, if you are asking about the idea of "supernaturality", then it has been from the beginning associated with divinity, since deities were pretty much defined as being immortal (i.e. beyond the realm of birth -- and death). — Mariner
It is obvious once you think of it, there can't be language referring to the supernatural before there has been a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, and this distinction will always take the form of a retreat of the gods, since the original viewpoint of mankind was one in which deities interacted with non-deities constantly. — Mariner
Yes, I believe I experienced my mother before I learned the word "mother." (I don't know why you would think I had claimed otherwise, but no biggie.) — Srap Tasmaner
Of course it's a biggie because it shows that your words refer to other things, and that is what you mean when you say them. I should just drop the microphone here, but I'll indulge you a bit more. — Harry Hindu
So, prior to typing something on the screen, you don't have an idea composed of a visual of how things actually are, and then use that idea to come up with words to communicate that idea? Are you seriously saying that the only thing that comes to your mind is words that get typed out on a screen? — Harry Hindu
I'm not aware of having "an idea composed of a visual of how things actually are" before I speak, or write, except when I'm trying to describe something I'm imagining visually. — Srap Tasmaner
Then what are you talking about when you say or write anything about some state-of-affairs that exists? — Harry Hindu
What about what I said about translating words from different languages. What are we translating if not the meaning of the words? — Harry Hindu
We use the words we do to form novel assertions (questions, commands, etc.) because of the meanings those words have. — Srap Tasmaner
You seem to be under the impression that I denied words can be used to refer. As I said before, I don't know how you got that impression, but I hold no such view, and do not believe I have expressed such a view here.
(If you could point out to me what I said that gave you that impression, I would be grateful; perhaps I expressed myself poorly. It happens.) — Srap Tasmaner
I don't see how you can say that when you talk about something that you're referring to visual imagery, or a sound, or a feeling, etc. but when it comes to obligations, you aren't? An obligation is one of those things that are composed of many different concepts and sensory impressions - like the feeling you get when you don't uphold your obligations, or the feeling you have when you do, or what that obligation is composed of, like going to work, your co-workers who depend on you, your clients who you've built a nice relationship with, etc. - all of which are composed of visual imagery, etc.I simply do not understand how these are connected. If I talk about something I am visually imagining, that's what I'm talking about. If I talk about something I'm looking at, I'm not talking about something I'm imagining. I can talk about having an obligation, even though I don't know how to visualize an obligation. I talk about music all the time without ever visualizing it.
I just really have no idea why you would think I have to visualize something in order to talk about it. Maybe I've misunderstood you. — Srap Tasmaner
I don't see how you can say that when you talk about something that you're referring to visual imagery, or a sound, or a feeling, etc. but when it comes to obligations, you aren't? An obligation is one of those things that are composed of many different concepts and sensory impressions - like the feeling you get when you don't uphold your obligations, or the feeling you have when you do, or what that obligation is composed of, like going to work, your co-workers who depend on you, your clients who you've built a nice relationship with, etc. - all of which are composed of visual imagery, etc. — Harry Hindu
Thinking and imagining are composed of sensory impressions. I'm arguing that you cannot think without your thoughts taking some form. Words are simply other visuals and sounds that we associate with other things. We even associate other things that aren't words with other things, like the taste of a cookie with the visual of a cookie, or maybe even your mother who makes the best cookies - associations that one can establish without even knowing a language. — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.