Message 196 of 318 (675461) 10-11-2012 1:58 PM

Reply to: Message 184 by Phat 10-11-2012 1:42 AM

I didn't bring up the right or wrong scenario, jar did. I'm just clearing up that fact that he hasn't presented anything that can be considered right or wrong. It's just a mess of words that can barely be understood, and clearly contradict themselves.

If you have a set of beliefs that you're trying to convey to someone at the very least they should make sense.

- Oni

Message 197 of 318 (675462) 10-11-2012 2:09 PM

Reply to: Message 190 by jar 10-11-2012 10:24 AM

But you are not showing the distinction between your method of arriving at your assertion: GOD and the method used to arrive at the other assertions: God, god/s - they are ALL human constructs and caricatures in an attempt to explain the unexplainable.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get how you changing the way you spell GOD from God and gods makes any difference. You all arrive at your assertions in the same way, guessing.

Saying "GOD, if GOD exists, would be reality" is as meaningless as saying "God created everything we can see and not see."

- Oni

Message 198 of 318 (675464) 10-11-2012 2:13 PM

Reply to: Message 194 by jar 10-11-2012 12:27 PM

quote:

---

1.of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

---

Do you now understand why Voldermort qualifies as supernatural but Miss Marple (for example) doesn't?

Both are fictional but only one is supernatural.

If you disagree could you reveal what definition of supernatural it is you are applying here?

Message 199 of 318 (675467) 10-11-2012 2:28 PM

Reply to: Message 195 by Phat 10-11-2012 12:28 PM

Well he can in the sense that nobody can stop him doing it. But if he wants to actually communicate with other people they have to know what the hell he is talking about. And given that the thing he believes in is apparently "unknowable" it is debatable (to say the least) that he knows what he is talking about himself, never mind when he is expressing these thoughts to anyone else.

In truth I am rapidly beginning to think that jar has created such a tangled web of inter-dependent personal definitions that coherent conversation with him is nothing but superficially possible.

A Christian who thinks the Christian god is a fabrication. A theist who believes in a supernatural entity that isn't a god. Definitions of of god, God and GOD that are nothing other than personal beliefs and assumptions imposed in the form of something else. A use of the term "supernatural" that apparently only applies to this GOD that really exists as opposed to those other non-supernatural gods.....etc.

The guy is practically talking in tongues whilst approximating English closely enough to make superficial sense.

He defines his genuinely supernatural GOD as that which is real rather than being one of those other made-up-non-supernatural-gods.

But why is this concept worthy of any more merit, consideration or credence than any "unknowable" entity I can conceive of and put forward as real?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Message 201 of 318 (675495) 10-11-2012 4:24 PM

Reply to: Message 198 by Straggler 10-11-2012 2:13 PM

Yes, we can assert that something is supernatural but what does that have to do with whether or not the thing is supernatural?

I have never said that humans can't make stuff up.

I've also covered why I can't define something as supernatural; I'm human, I don't know or even have a clue how I could ever determine that something was actually supernatural.

Message 202 of 318 (675496) 10-11-2012 4:27 PM

Reply to: Message 199 by Straggler 10-11-2012 2:28 PM

But I have never suggested that I think you should consider my posts as "worthy of any more merit, consideration or credence than any "unknowable" entity I can conceive of and put forward as real".

But you are useful as a tool to allow me to post my beliefs.

Message 203 of 318 (675501) 10-11-2012 6:23 PM

Reply to: Message 200 by jar 10-11-2012 4:20 PM

I know. Point is you don't show a distinction between the methods of arriving at the assertions.

If you want to show a clear distinction bewteen GOD, God and gods then you'll have to show how you arrive at that distinction with some separate type of method.

You made the claim God and gods are assertions to explain the unexplainable and GOD was different. How did you arrive at that and how is it different from how others arrived at God and gods?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Message 204 of 318 (675505) 10-11-2012 7:12 PM

Reply to: Message 203 by onifre 10-11-2012 6:23 PM

The gods seem to be pretty well defined, for example the god found in the early Genesis stories is very human, looks human walks around, talks and eats, wrestles with humans and even when he cheats cannot overcome the human.

At the next level we find the "Christian God" as an example, one that is only vaguely defined, formless incorporating paradoxes like the Trinity.

But they were all based on things humans were familiar with whether we were talking about Thor or Coyote or Nun or Ganesha.

Message 205 of 318 (675506) 10-11-2012 7:26 PM

Reply to: Message 201 by jar 10-11-2012 4:24 PM

Says the man who asserts that the object of his own belief "IS supernatural...."

In what sense is your conclusion here anything other than an assertion?

The obvious conclusion here is that this is exactly what you are doing. You are making up god(s). Then you are making up definitions to distinguish the object of your belief from all those other false-gods.

How can the definition of supernatural be worthless in assessing whether something (e.g. the fictional entity Voldermort) qualifies as supernatural?

What definition of supernatural are you applying such that GOD does qualify but Thor, Zeus and Voldermort don't?

Is this yet another case of you taking a commonly defined term and redefining it for your own purposes?

Dude you need to create your own dictionary of personal terminology.....

Message 206 of 318 (675507) 10-11-2012 7:32 PM

Reply to: Message 202 by jar 10-11-2012 4:27 PM

If you agree that there is no reasoned argument to give this GOD concept any more merit, consideration or credence than any other "unknowable" entity I can conceive of and that your only reason for doing so is your own personal irrational belief - Why are you arguing with me?

Message 207 of 318 (675509) 10-11-2012 7:34 PM

Reply to: Message 204 by jar 10-11-2012 7:12 PM

Theist concludes ALL other gods are false interpretations of the one true god he believes in!!!!!

How unoriginal.....

Message 208 of 318 (675510) 10-11-2012 7:39 PM

Reply to: Message 205 by Straggler 10-11-2012 7:26 PM

What I have posted in this thread is a factual representation of my beliefs and a response to the topic of whether or not God can be defined.

As I have said before, asserting that something is supernatural and the thing actually being supernatural are two entirely different things.

Message 210 of 318 (675525) 10-12-2012 6:36 AM

Reply to: Message 209 by jar 10-11-2012 7:39 PM

So we have - GOD is the reality. All those other gods/Gods are just flawed interpretations of GOD.

So the object of your belief is the one true GOD. Not one of those other-human-construct-gods. Yours is the real deal. The truth upon which those other flawed interpretations are based.

In short - All those other gods are false interpretations of the one true god, sorry I mean GOD, that you believe in.....

Like I said - It's depressingly unoriginal of you.