[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]*shrug* I don't really know what to say to you if you can't even parse relatively basic syntax like that. Perhaps you should invest some time into improving your crummy English skills.MannyDelgadoI've heard of capitalization and punctuation.;)Oh, then congratulations! Have a f*cking biscuit or whatever it is that it takes to shut you up. Tsk Tsk.....you come in a thread to troll and get angry when called on it. Settle down man. Log off and take a walk.
The Heresy of the Catholic Church
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="mattisgod01"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]People of faith? I'm assuming you are not a person of faith and yet looking at your user name one can see the term god is meant to mean something more. Why else would you include it in your user name? Obviously the term is intended and does mean better than humans. Not ordinary. If you can't understand the supernatural is not bound by natural I don't know what to tell you. But it does. And trying to lower the term to human depiction is pointless. And then so is your user name using your logic.LJS9502_basic
The concept of God has meaning, The truth is a different matter. On what grounds could anyone claim anything supernatural exists? If it is supernatural does it not need to become natural for you to experience it? If it does then what you view is natural, Not supernatural so again, On what grounds can you make a statement for the existence of the supernatural?
Then the term god would be worthless. On what grounds can you make a statement for the lack of existence of the supernatural? You cannot prove otherwise. Hence it's an opinion or belief. So it's pointless to try to go that route in arguing. My statement was about what the term is taken to mean. And it's certainly NOT taken to mean anything as mundane as natural/human.How could i possibly prove something doesn't exist? I can't prove Big Foot doesn't exist either. I, However, Am not making claims beyond the simply assumption that it does exist. You go further and make claims very specific that would warrant more then just stating neither side can prove anything. You need to back up your claims and if you cannot then i see your position as being irrational.
When you say it's not taken to mean "anything as mundane as natural/human" Are you arguing semantics, Or are you referring to what people of faith believe it to be? Ie. Supernatural?
Then the term god would be worthless. On what grounds can you make a statement for the lack of existence of the supernatural? You cannot prove otherwise. Hence it's an opinion or belief. So it's pointless to try to go that route in arguing. My statement was about what the term is taken to mean. And it's certainly NOT taken to mean anything as mundane as natural/human.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]
The concept of God has meaning, The truth is a different matter. On what grounds could anyone claim anything supernatural exists? If it is supernatural does it not need to become natural for you to experience it? If it does then what you view is natural, Not supernatural so again, On what grounds can you make a statement for the existence of the supernatural?
mattisgod01
How could i possibly prove something doesn't exist? I can't prove Big Foot doesn't exist either. I, However, Am not making claims beyond the simply assumption that it does exist. You go further and make claims very specific that would warrant more then just stating neither side can prove anything. You need to back up your claims and if you cannot then i see your position as being irrational.
When you say it's not taken to mean "anything as mundane as natural/human" Are you arguing semantics, Or are you referring to what people of faith believe it to be? Ie. Supernatural?
However the term supernatural does exist and you're trying to make it natural. Semantics? No I'm arguing your idea that something supernatural should act as though it were human.[QUOTE="mattisgod01"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Then the term god would be worthless. On what grounds can you make a statement for the lack of existence of the supernatural? You cannot prove otherwise. Hence it's an opinion or belief. So it's pointless to try to go that route in arguing. My statement was about what the term is taken to mean. And it's certainly NOT taken to mean anything as mundane as natural/human.LJS9502_basic
How could i possibly prove something doesn't exist? I can't prove Big Foot doesn't exist either. I, However, Am not making claims beyond the simply assumption that it does exist. You go further and make claims very specific that would warrant more then just stating neither side can prove anything. You need to back up your claims and if you cannot then i see your position as being irrational.
When you say it's not taken to mean "anything as mundane as natural/human" Are you arguing semantics, Or are you referring to what people of faith believe it to be? Ie. Supernatural?
However the term supernatural does exist and you're trying to make it natural. Semantics? No I'm arguing your idea that something supernatural should act as though it were human.We can only ever experience anything on the natural level, So whether supernatural exists or not may aswell be irrelevant to everything. I fail to see why it warrants any attention or thought by anyone, let alone religious scripture. Why would God want to be supernatural? When in order to act he would need to become natural. If he acted in a supernatural way within our natural plain we could not experience it, Which makes the whole concept of miracles and divine intervention nonsensical. Supernatural is a meaningless word that is nothing more then a cop out when people can't answer things through logic and reason.
My Idea that supernatural must act through natural levels is the logical position, Is it not?, If it acted on a supernatural level how could natural beings experience it?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment