(November 23, 2016 at 6:52 pm)Ignorant Wrote:

(November 23, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Why don't you tell me what your fucking point is instead?

A question is not a point. 

When I asked you what your point was what I meant was 'why are you asking that question?' . You still haven't answered that. You want me to answer a stupid question, I won't. Why don't you just get to the point or, rather, tell me what you mean by the word nature in that instance, instead, if you so like. Be sure to tell me what relevance it has to our conversation as well, though.

Quote:You told me that words have meaning which can't be made up as we go along. Clearly you object to my understanding of "nature", and accuse me of equivocation. So I want to know what you mean when you say the word "nature" in reference  to "human nature".

What I mean with making that objection is that you misunderstand what naturalism means, not what nature does.  


You're not a naturalist. You believe in the supernatural. Or else you're not religious, not a Christian, and not a theist.

Any further questions?

(November 23, 2016 at 7:00 pm)Ignorant Wrote: You can even use the dictionary on google: definition 2:

"2. the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.

synonyms: essence, inherent/basic/essential characteristics, inherent/basic/essential qualities, inherent/basic/essential attributes, inherent/basic/essential features, sum and substance, character, identity, complexion"

Well, that's dandy. Now make the connection with the topic at hand.

(November 23, 2016 at 7:00 pm)Ignorant Wrote: You can even use the dictionary on google: definition 2:

"2. the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.

synonyms: essence, inherent/basic/essential characteristics, inherent/basic/essential qualities, inherent/basic/essential attributes, inherent/basic/essential features, sum and substance, character, identity, complexion"

How is this related in any way to what we are talking about?

Concerning my position on naturalism, I think it's everyone's own business whether they want to walk around naked and get sunburn on their private parts.

(November 23, 2016 at 7:11 pm)Alex K Wrote: Concerning my position on naturalism, I think it's everyone's own business whether they want to walk around naked and get sunburn on their private parts.

You do know that's naturism, though, right?

(November 23, 2016 at 7:09 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(November 23, 2016 at 7:00 pm)Ignorant Wrote: You can even use the dictionary on google: definition 2:

"2. the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.

synonyms: essence, inherent/basic/essential characteristics, inherent/basic/essential qualities, inherent/basic/essential attributes, inherent/basic/essential features, sum and substance, character, identity, complexion"

Well, that's dandy. Now make the connection with the topic at hand.

Seriously? 

If there is a god => god has basic or inherent features. If god has basic or inherent features => god is/has a nature. If god is/has a nature => god is natural. Do you need the definition of "natural" as well?

Also from google: "Natural, adj. 2. in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something."

Your "instinct" to classify god as "supernatural" no doubt comes from a long history of frustrating discussions with theists. My "version" of naturalism is no misrepresentation, even if it is not the way you are accustomed to the phrase. Catholics believe that god is one nature/substance/essence/ousia in three persons. Catholics believe that Jesus is one person with two natures/ousia. We've been using the word for a long time.

As for the topic, since my religious tradition has spoken about god with the word "nature" for almost 2000 years, I think that allows me some leeway in my ownership of the term. "Supernatural" is a late-comer that I don't find helpful.

ANYTHING THAT IS => that thing has basic or inherent features. If ANYTHING has basic or inherent features => that thing is/has a nature. If ANYTHING is/has a nature => that thing is natural. Therefore, only natural things exist.

^A sort of philosophical naturalism.

Granted, "nature" USED to ONLY apply to living substances, but I don't want to be a slave to ancient (or modern) terminology (as long as I also explain what I mean).

Anywhoser. I think that things only exist AS something. That something is a nature, and must also apply to god, if it is anything at all.

(November 23, 2016 at 7:08 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: You're not a naturalist. You believe in the supernatural. Or else you're not religious, not a Christian, and not a theist.

Any further questions?

Ya. What does supernatural mean?

(November 23, 2016 at 7:08 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(November 23, 2016 at 6:52 pm)Ignorant Wrote: A question is not a point.

When I asked you what your point was what I meant was 'why are you asking that question?' . You still haven't answered that.

Yes I have. Here's the answer: Because I want to know how you would answer. Typically that is why people ask questions, even if people on these forums are usually trying to "trap" people with them.

Sensing your reluctance to answer, I provided the answer for you using google. The answer is in the dictionary.

Ignorant Wrote:
If there is a god => god has basic or inherent features. If god has basic or inherent features => god is/has a nature. If god is/has a nature => god is natural.

Thank you for your post, Ignorant.  If we were to discover a highly advanced being who was very powerful, then how could one differentiate it from being a god versus being a different, yet highly unique alien life-form?  Would it ultimately come down to faith?