Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 526 of 549 (587887)
10-21-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by Jon
10-21-2010 1:27 AM


Re: Definitions: Cornerstones of Debate
Hi Jon
Looks like you've finally conceded defeat. Allow me to be the one that nails the final nail into the coffin lid.
Whether an empirical test for the deistic Mubu-Turdung siblinghood exists or not
Here you admit, what I suspected for a while. You thought I was testing for the existence of a supernatural entity, when I actually wasn't. I was testing a hypothesis that a supernatural entity affects the world in a certain way.
Hopefully, if you want to continue along this discussion we could discuss that kind of hypothesis "entity x does y after z" which can certainly be falsified by showing y does not follow z and entity x can be natural or supernatural. If X is supernatural then the hypothesis, for any reasonable understanding I would have thought, is a supernatural hypothesis.
I draw this from the notion that if your test does test for them, then they are not supernatural; if your test cannot test for them, then they are supernatural. In either situation, we end up with an untestable 'supernatural'
Might I suggest you abandon using the word the way you do? It does not gel with common usage and there is a word in common usage that has the exact same meaning:
quote:
I draw this from the notion that if your test does test for them, then they are not untestable; if your test cannot test for them, then they are untestable. In either situation, we end up with an untestable 'untestable'
This seems silly, and it might be, but it results from the definition of 'supernatural' I use;
I was under the impression you asked me for a working definition so that you might employ it in a discussion with me. But yes, attempting to use shoddy definitions to define yourself as inherently correct does seem silly - I would have hoped that was a hint enough to you to not waste my time with it. Since this is Straggler's thread - I'm pretty sure he gets to define what a 'supernatural hypothesis' counts as. We should be discussing that topic, if you would rather think of it as "Has the immaterial agency causing material or immaterial things to occur hypothesis failed?" then go right ahead. Or make up your own word. But I'm comfortable with a definition that makes gods, spirits and ghosts supernatural.
As I hinted from the onset, I simply define 'supernatural' in a way that implies it to be something that is unfalsifiable through natural means, investigations of the natural world
Which means you had no intention of paying attention to me when I gave a definition of the supernatural. I feel vindicated for the rather harsh thing I sad earlier:
quote:
You are reasoning backwards that since you believe I am wrong, there must be a flaw somewhere, and you are confidently attacking every which way and hoping something will stick.
Indeed - you believe I am wrong because you weren't using the definition I gave, but you were using the definition you had in your head that almost nobody else in the world uses. I'm sure you can see how that might lead to confusion.
According to you:
The existence of Mubu, the god, is a supernatural claim (it cannot be tested)
The hypothesis that Mubu, the god helps crop growth (by driving away immaterial disease spirits) if you sacrifice to him is a natural claim (since it can be tested).
This definition, while allowing us to toss the supernatural into the pile of dismissibles, also made the supernatural, as far as I could tell, inherently untouchable by the arm of science, and so I found it reasonable to say the supernatural should be dismissed, but unreasonable to say it has failed by any scientific standard.
A hypothesis that is unfalsifiable is a failure by the scientific standard. QED: /thread
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by Jon, posted 10-21-2010 1:27 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by Jon, posted 10-21-2010 1:16 PM Modulous has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 527 of 549 (587924)
10-21-2010 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by Modulous
10-21-2010 8:55 AM


Can't Bury this Pumpkin Yet!!
Looks like you've finally conceded defeat.
No; I just realize that we're going at this with two different understandings of 'supernatural'; I realize that if your test does test for Mubu, then this has no bearing on the 'supernatural' as I define it. If we define 'supernatural' in a way that makes it testable, then we are not allowed to dismiss it outright.
Since this is Straggler's thread - I'm pretty sure he gets to define what a 'supernatural hypothesis' counts as.
Except he has failed to consistently do so. And in most cases, he has conceded that the immaterial things he considers the 'supernatural' to be do not interact with the material world (though he has backpedaled on this a few times).
Might I suggest you abandon using the word the way you do?
I use it as I use it for the sake of being able to dismiss the supernatural outright without having to test it. I have also chosen this definition by simply combining the base forms, super + natural, to get a meaning somewhere along the lines of 'out of reach of the natural; beyond (not necessarily in the sense of being better than) the natural in every way, including its ability to interact with the natural'. In more common parlance, I'd be more likely to use the definition you have used, but then I would not regard our Mubu 2x Fertilizer entity outright dismissible on grounds of being 'supernatural' by this definition.
Indeed - you believe I am wrong because you weren't using the definition I gave, but you were using the definition you had in your head that almost nobody else in the world uses. I'm sure you can see how that might lead to confusion.
Of course; it leads to great confusion.
A hypothesis that is unfalsifiable is a failure by the scientific standard.
I see no honest way to fail something that has not been tested. I do not believe this is a feature of the scientific method, but rather of the prejudice against unfalsifiable claims of those who carry out the scientific method.
QED: /thread
From my take, this thread had two things to address (Message 1):
1) Can we dismiss the 'supernatural'? ('have we now reached the point where the supernatural hypothesis can be legitimately dismissed...?')
2) Has the 'supernatural' failed? ('Has the supernatural hypothesis failed?')
As I said above, and as you failed to address, I do not believe we can use one meaningful definition of supernatural that allows us to do both things. We must pick; and in picking, we inevitably prevent ourselves from (honestly) doing one or the other of those things. The only out is to define 'failure' in a way that 'not signing up for the class makes you fail the exam', i.e., so broadly that merely opting out does not leave you neutral, but creates a failure of you. If this is how you wish to define failure, then I suppose you can have your cake and eat it too, but I do not see this definition as meaningful for the same reason you see my definition of 'supernatural' as pointless: there are already words with this definition, such that defining it in this way doesn't make it meaningful as its own word. It also does not say much for the truth of our hypothesis if calling it a 'failure' can convey anything from falsity to inability to be tested; that is, I'm not sure that defining 'failure' in this way really makes calling something a failure all too meaningful.
Jon

Check out the Purple Quill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2010 8:55 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2010 1:37 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 529 by AZPaul3, posted 10-22-2010 12:49 AM Jon has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 528 of 549 (587933)
10-21-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by Jon
10-21-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Can't Bury this Pumpkin Yet!!
I use it as I use it for the sake of being able to dismiss the supernatural outright without having to test it. I have also chosen this definition by simply combining the base forms, super + natural, to get a meaning somewhere along the lines of 'out of reach of the natural; beyond (not necessarily in the sense of being better than) the natural in every way, including its ability to interact with the natural'. In more common parlance, I'd be more likely to use the definition you have used, but then I would not regard our Mubu 2x Fertilizer entity outright dismissible on grounds of being 'supernatural' by this definition.
Great - so if we're agreeing that my Mubu under the terms supernatural which people actually use is in fact supernatural, and we agree you would not dismiss it on those grounds...would you dismiss it on the grounds the test shows that Mubu sacrifices do not keep away disease or help crops in any tangible way, contrary to the hypothesis.
I see no honest way to fail something that has not been tested. I do not believe this is a feature of the scientific method, but rather of the prejudice against unfalsifiable claims of those who carry out the scientific method.
But the first test of a hypothesis that science asks is "Is this hypothesis falsifiable?", supernatural hypotheses can be subjected to this test.
It hasn't failed in the sense 'proven wrong', it has failed as a hypothesis to meet the requirements of a hypothesis according to the philosophy of science which is not an unwarranted 'prejudice', but a pragmatic decision which has given us the 20th century. If you want to say that the supernatural hypothesis has not failed according to some other standard, then maybe so. But on scientific terms, it is a failure of a hypothesis.
As I said above, and as you failed to address, I do not believe we can use one meaningful definition of supernatural that allows us to do both things.
Then we move onto the second step of the process as I actually described earlier (I did not fail to address it):
Every time a supernatural hypothesis is falsifiable and has been tested, it is falsified.
Every time a supernatural hypothesis is unfalsifiable it fails to meet the standards of a scientific hypothesis.
So, the question then becomes - how many falsifications and unscientific proposals need to be made in the name of the supernatural before we conclude that as an avenue of hypothesis generation it is best considered a dead end. A failed avenue of thought. A failure as a suite of hypotheses.
Presumably if luminerferous ether based hypotheses are considered 'failed', by those same standards supernatural based hypotheses can likewise be considered?
Or as I succinctly put it some time ago:
quote:
Many are testable, have been tested, and have failed.
The ones that have not failed have done so by being untestable. Since they are untestable, there is no way anyone can have confidence in them.
When 'immaterial causal agent' can be tested, it fails.
When it can't be tested, its useless since we can't hold any confidence in it.
How is this not the very definition of a failed hypothesis? Either it consistently fails or gives us nothing.
In my first post, that you'd said you'd get back to when you uncovered what I meant by 'supernatural'. I guess now would be a good time to revisit it. Message 465
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Jon, posted 10-21-2010 1:16 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by AZPaul3, posted 10-22-2010 1:01 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 529 of 549 (588019)
10-22-2010 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 527 by Jon
10-21-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Can't Bury this Pumpkin Yet!!
A hypothesis that is unfalsifiable is a failure by the scientific standard.
I see no honest way to fail something that has not been tested. I do not believe this is a feature of the scientific method, but rather of the prejudice against unfalsifiable claims of those who carry out the scientific method.
Jon, I think you have the wrong idea about what the scientific concept of "falsifiability" actually means.
Do you know what "falsifiable" means for a hypothesis or even a recognized established theory?
General Relativity is falsifiable. Why?
QCD and Evolution are falsifiable. Why?
Whether it is your definition or Mod's definition, either one, "Supernatural" is not falsifiable. Why not?
In science, a hypothesis that is not falsifiable has already failed. Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Jon, posted 10-21-2010 1:16 PM Jon has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 530 of 549 (588021)
10-22-2010 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by Modulous
10-21-2010 1:37 PM


Sorry Modulous
One of these days I am going to actually read all following messages before I spout off on one. Sorry Mod.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2010 1:37 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 1:50 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 531 of 549 (588100)
10-22-2010 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by onifre
10-20-2010 11:54 PM


Re: "Meaningless"
Do you think the definition of the term "god" I supplied you with is invalid? How can the term be meaningless if we have defined and agreed a meaning for it?
Oni writes:
"See that concept I created? That is god."
You are once again conflating two different things. When people seek to define the particular object of their personal theistic beliefs they are not defining the term god in the sense of supplying a universal dictionary style definition.
When you ask the question What do you mean by god why do you think those answering are providing you with a universal definition rather than a statement of what it is they believe in?
Look at our conversations with CS. Ask him what he means by "god" and he will loosely define the object of his beliefs. Then ask him if the ancient Greeks believed in gods and he will answer that question in the universal sense.
You are conflating his answers to these different questions.
Oni writes:
"See that concept I created? That is god."
No. That concept is an example of a god concept. A concept which the person asked actually believes in whilst also accepting that there are numerous other examples of god concepts in which they do not personally believe.
Oni writes:
So it seems clear to me that the concepts define what god is, was and will be. The word doesn't have a meaning or definition independent of the concepts...muchacho.
Then we are back to our comparison with the term "superhero". Can we define that any more thoroughly than we can "god"?
Oni writes:
"See what all that does? That's life."
No. I don't really see "what all that does". What does life do such that we can universally recognise it?
Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by onifre, posted 10-20-2010 11:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 1:48 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 532 of 549 (588154)
10-22-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by onifre
10-20-2010 11:54 PM


Sorry
Oni writes:
Suave muchacho...
Yep. I was being a belligerent dick.
A few beers and some EvC interaction with Jon are my excuse. But I generally try and limit my worst excesses of belligerent dickism to those who act like twats towards me first. You have not done this.
So I apologise for my belligerent dickism.
Now it is Friday and I am off for some more beers - So prepare yourself for more over confident twattishness later on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by onifre, posted 10-20-2010 11:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 535 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 2:31 PM Straggler has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 533 of 549 (588155)
10-22-2010 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 531 by Straggler
10-22-2010 9:15 AM


Re: "Meaningless"
Do you think the definition of the term "god" I supplied you with is invalid?
You didn't provide me with a definition, you gave me a concept.
A supernatural entity that created the universe is your concept equal to any other concept.
There is no definition independent of the concepts.
When people seek to define the particular object of their personal theistic beliefs they are not defining the term god in the sense of supplying a universal dictionary style definition.
I know, I haven't claimed the were.
Can we define that any more thoroughly than we can "god"?
No. However, without the superhero concepts the word would lose it's meaning. Just like god.
I don't really see "what all that does". What does life do such that we can universally recognise it?
Exists in reality.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2010 9:15 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2010 8:58 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 534 of 549 (588157)
10-22-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by AZPaul3
10-22-2010 1:01 AM


Re: Sorry Modulous
One of these days I am going to actually read all following messages before I spout off on one.
You will find yourself literally IN the movie Inception if you do.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by AZPaul3, posted 10-22-2010 1:01 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by AZPaul3, posted 10-22-2010 2:43 PM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 535 of 549 (588160)
10-22-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by Straggler
10-22-2010 1:42 PM


Re: Sorry
A few beers and some EvC interaction with Jon are my excuse. But I generally try and limit my worst excesses of belligerent dickism to those who act like twats towards me first. You have not done this.
So I apologise for my belligerent dickism.
Ah, no problem dude. Never a worry.
Now it is Friday and I am off for some more beers - So prepare yourself for more over confident twattishness later on.
That's better! Stop acting like a fag with all that apology crap.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2010 1:42 PM Straggler has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 536 of 549 (588162)
10-22-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by onifre
10-22-2010 1:50 PM


Re: Sorry Modulous
You will find yourself literally IN the movie Inception if you do.
Easy there, big fella, I haven't seen that one yet so let's not be giving anything away.
[Something germane to the thread ... yes ... well ...]
If, by reading messages on a forum I could be physically transported into a film production that has already been completed, then this would certainly be a supernatural occurrence. And since it would be a supernatural occurrence with impact on our natural world then it should be falsifiable.
Most unfortunate then that since all other claims of supernatural impact on our natural world have been found to be false I cannot hold out much hope that this one would be any different. And I was so hoping to have a film debut even if as a union scale extra.
C'est la vie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 1:50 PM onifre has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 537 of 549 (588202)
10-22-2010 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by onifre
10-22-2010 1:48 PM


Re: "Meaningless"
Oni writes:
You didn't provide me with a definition, you gave me a concept.
No I didn't. I supplied you with a definition. Look in any dictionary. As per previous posts:
Straggler: The term god means a supernatural conscious being that is responsible for some aspect of reality. Something like the following dictionary definition:
1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force Related adj divine.
Look in any dictionary and let me know if you find anything radically different.
Oni writes:
However, without the superhero concepts the word would lose it's meaning. Just like god.
So you agree that the term "superhero" is no more or less meaningless than the term "god"?
Just how many "meaningless" words do you think we can identify? Wizard? Shamen? Ghost? Telepathy? Poltergeist? Telekenesis? Are all these words all equally "meaningless"?
Despite the fact we know what they mean and can find definitions pertaining to common conceptual usage if we need to.
Oni writes:
However, without the superhero concepts the word would lose it's meaning.
If a the terms "superhero" and "god" are meaningless you presumably have no problem with describing Peter Parker as a god and Jesus as a superhero?
If the above comparisons don't adhere to common conceptual meaing then I would suggest your assertions are overly simplistic.
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
What does life do such that we can universally recognise it?
Exists in reality.
That is just silly. Rocks exist in reality but nobody sane would describe rocks as a form of life.
What does life do such that we can universally recognise it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 1:48 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 10:03 PM Straggler has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 538 of 549 (588208)
10-22-2010 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by Straggler
10-22-2010 8:58 PM


Re: "Meaningless"
Straggler: The term god means a supernatural conscious being that is responsible for some aspect of reality.
But that sounds like the concept of god in deism. Add "that you worship" and now it sounds like a lot of the other concepts.
I guess where I'm having trouble is, how do you distinguish between the proper definition and any other concept?
Just how many "meaningless" words do you think we can identify? Wizard? Shamen? Ghost? Telepathy? Poltergeist? Telekenesis? Are all these words all equally "meaningless"?
If you were to remove the conceptual, created, human images and descriptions of these things, would these words have meaning? Would me saying "there is a ghost in the room" mean anything to you if man hadn't created stories and images of ghost?
These words were created because the concepts were created, and we needed to call them something. And the concepts were created (as you well know) to fill in the blanks, they are gap fillers, they don't explain or describe anything - they're used as linguistic place fillers.
The word life however, is different.
Take what you said for example:
Straggler writes:
Rocks exist in reality but nobody sane would describe rocks as a form of life.
Well, why? Because even though there isn't a concensus, there is a limit as to what any sane person would call life. And why? Because any sane person can physically look at an object and investigate what it is. The object physically exists.
Can you say the same for god, ghosts and wizrds?
It may vary and can be argued as to what "life" actually is, but it is objectively studied. And, one thing is for sure, a rock isn't life. So lets use that, for sake of argument. Anything that is not a rock, is life.
Let the debate begin as to what a "rock" is.
If a the terms "superhero" and "god" are meaningless you presumably have no problem with describing Peter Parker as a god and Jesus as a superhero?
Are you telling me your son doesn't see Peter Parker (fuckin' Spiderman!) as a god in his 4 year old world?
And don't you think Christians waiting for Jesus to return and smit the wicked see him as their own personal superhero?
If you heard me say that, that your son thinks Spiderman is a god and Christians think Jesus is their own personal superhero, would you know what I meant?
That is just silly.
I meant it to be.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2010 8:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by Straggler, posted 10-25-2010 9:24 AM onifre has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 539 of 549 (588405)
10-25-2010 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 538 by onifre
10-22-2010 10:03 PM


Re: "Meaningless"
Oni do you think that any word that refers to any concept which probably doesn't actually exist is meaningless?
Oni writes:
If you were to remove the conceptual, created, human images and descriptions of these things, would these words have meaning?
How can ANY word have meaning if you remove it's common conceptual meaning?
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
Rocks exist in reality but nobody sane would describe rocks as a form of life.
Well, why? Because even though there isn't a concensus, there is a limit as to what any sane person would call life. And why? Because any sane person can physically look at an object and investigate what it is. The object physically exists.
Do you accept that it is possible to have fictional examples of life? Or not?
Oni writes:
Can you say the same for god, ghosts and wizrds?Because any sane person can physically look at an object and investigate what it is. The object physically exists.
Are Klingons an example of life? E.T? Bigfoot?
Oni writes:
If you heard me say that, that your son thinks Spiderman is a god and Christians think Jesus is their own personal superhero, would you know what I meant?
If I took my son to see Jesus of Nazareth on the promise that he was going to see a superhero film he would be very unhappy with the result.
Can you not see the difference between people falsely imbuing things with attributes that make them godly (i.e. believing that things are gods) and those things actually possessing those criteria?
Have you seen the life of Brian? Was Brian the Messiah? Or did people just think he was despite the fact he was no more godly than you or I?
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
Straggler: The term god means a supernatural conscious being that is responsible for some aspect of reality.
But that sounds like the concept of god in deism. Add "that you worship" and now it sounds like a lot of the other concepts.
If you don't specify what aspect of reality the entity in question is responsible for it sounds like the god of deism. If you specify the Sun or the weather or fertility or whatever then it sounds like a more specific god of that particular aspect of reality. If you give it a name and a mythology it becomes Apollo or Thor or whatever.
But they all meet that universal definition.
Oni writes:
I guess where I'm having trouble is, how do you distinguish between the proper definition and any other concept?
If the concept in question is a supernatural conscious being that is responsible for some aspect of reality (whether specific as per Apollo or Thor or ambiguous as per deism) then it is a god by common conceptual meaning you can find in any dictionary.
I really don't get what your problem is with this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 10:03 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by onifre, posted 10-25-2010 3:28 PM Straggler has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 540 of 549 (588426)
10-25-2010 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by Straggler
10-25-2010 9:24 AM


Re: "Meaningless"
Oni do you think that any word that refers to any concept which probably doesn't actually exist is meaningless?
Words which have been invented as gap fillers, when the concept is removed, end up meaningless.
How can ANY word have meaning if you remove it's common conceptual meaning?
I didn't say remove its conceptual "meaning," I said images and descriptions. They don't exist separate from them.
Example: The moon remains there whether you call it "moon" or "The Eye of God." A ghost doesn't remain there, it ONLY exists as an imagined concept.
Do you accept that it is possible to have fictional examples of life? Or not?
As I've stated from the begining, in the world of fiction anything is possible.
Are Klingons an example of life? E.T? Bigfoot?
No, they are actors, characters and invented creatures. IF they existed as they are represented in fictional works, then they too could be examples of life.
Can you not see the difference between people falsely imbuing things with attributes that make them godly (i.e. believing that things are gods) and those things actually possessing those criteria?
No, not at all. I have no say so in what attributes god/s possess. I didn't know there was a criteria.
What's the criteria? Does John Frum fit the criteria? So what are the limits? Who establishes the criteria? How does a concept get left out?
And...you didn't answer my question:
Oni writes:
If you heard me say that, that your son thinks Spiderman is a god and Christians think Jesus is their own personal superhero, would you know what I meant?
So would you?
Have you seen the life of Brian? Was Brian the Messiah? Or did people just think he was despite the fact he was no more godly than you or I?
Did you read the Bible? Was Jesus the Messiah? Or did people just think he was despite the fact he was no more godly than you or I?
But they all meet that universal definition.
They meet the universal concept, which leads to the universally accepted definition.
If the concept in question is a supernatural conscious being that is responsible for some aspect of reality (whether specific as per Apollo or Thor or ambiguous as per deism) then it is a god by common conceptual meaning you can find in any dictionary.
I really don't get what your problem is with this.
I don't have a problem with that, but that didn't address my question. I asked how you distinguish between a concept and the proper definition.
My point was that the concepts provided the definition for the word, you said it didn't. But you haven't shown me how.
The definition is, "A supernatural consciouisness." The concept of god in deism is, "A supernatural consciousness."
So, does deism provide the definition, or was there an existing, universally accepted definition that has been established for all of history and deism just adopted it?
Or does the definition get more and more ambiguous as time goes and changes to represent that?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by Straggler, posted 10-25-2010 9:24 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by Straggler, posted 10-25-2010 4:27 PM onifre has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024