(November 24, 2016 at 6:54 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I've used too much invective language in this thread and for that, I apologize. I have edited my two most recent posts to reflect that. Now I regret to inform you I am withdrawing from these discussions - it seems I have to, it's becoming too heated for me. 

Nevertheless, thank you for conversing with me, Ignorant.  Have a nice day.

No problem. I appreciate your feedback, and I'll leave you with just a few thoughts on some of your comments:

Excited Penguin Wrote: That's where your equivocation lies. That's not the kind of natural implied in naturalism.

If you object to my labeling my view as a sort of 'naturalism'. Fair enough. I would hope, however, that you would accept that my actual position does need need to fit and correspond to 'naturalism' as you understand it.

Excited Penguin Wrote: Let us consult the Wikipedia article on naturalism

I'll draw your attention here:

Wikipedia, emphasis mine Wrote:"SOME philosophers equate naturalism with materialism . . . Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.

Perhaps it is possible to hold to a version of naturalism that does not employ this equation with materialism? If not, I'll be sure to find a different word for it. I'm thinking 'realism'. =)

Excited Penguin Wrote: Your Catholic "naturalism" is a misnomer, plain and simple.

If you want that word protected, by all means protect it. I hereby renounce my claim to be a Catholic 'naturalist'.

(November 24, 2016 at 6:37 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 5:30 am)Ignorant Wrote: Thanks for your question. If it is "a ... being", then it isn't god, regardless of its advanced quality. Most all things are like this:

Thing + "to be" verb + nature, for example:

You are (being) human. OR You are a human (being).

Your nature is human.

With god, the same formula applies:

God is (being) the-act-of-being

God's nature is the-act-of-being

God is the "to be" verb, so to speak.

God is "being", itself

So if you can establish that it is "a being", and not "being, itself", then it isn't god.

That's not an answer, that's a deepity.

Thanks for the comment!

(November 24, 2016 at 6:52 am)bennyboy Wrote: If God isn't a being, then who's Jesus?  Is Jesus "being, itself?"

=) YES! That is one of the basic Christian claims, anyway.

(November 24, 2016 at 5:30 am)Ignorant Wrote: So if you can establish that it is "a being", and not "being, itself", then it isn't god.

Thank you for your response, sir.  How would we go about establishing this?  More importantly, would our various philosophies/theories/beliefs inhibit our ability to be objective in such matters?

(November 24, 2016 at 10:40 am)Ignorant Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 6:37 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: That's not an answer, that's a deepity.

Thanks for the comment!

Well, it does succinctly point out the fact that you've not answered the original question. In fact, you'd answer no question with that answer.

I think it works for our current generation, while we are still a bit ignorant on how our world came to be. 'Nuff said, I suppose.

(November 22, 2016 at 1:24 pm)Ignorant Wrote: I hold to a kind of philosophical naturalism. Things only exist as something, not as super-somethings. If things act in ways that their something "can't" do (e.g. 'miraculously'), then either it is a previously unknown ability of that thing, or it is the action of some other thing able to do that act within/through the original thing, or some combination of the two.

You're the most sensible theist I've ever known. Apologies for blowing up on you earlier this month. It said more about my current state of mind than about you.

[emoji106]

I'm a very flexible person(ality).

(November 24, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 10:40 am)Ignorant Wrote: Thanks for the comment!

Well, it does succinctly point out the fact that you've not answered the original question. In fact, you'd answer no question with that answer.

Thank you for your observation.

(November 24, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 5:30 am)Ignorant Wrote: So if you can establish that it is "a being", and not "being, itself", then it isn't god.

Thank you for your response, sir.  How would we go about establishing this? [1] More importantly, would our various philosophies/theories/beliefs inhibit our ability to be objective in such matters? [2]

1) This is a great question. I think we naturally identify finite "beings" as finite simply by encountering them as such. God is not a "being" among many, as if he were one really interesting straw of hay in a haystack. He IS being, as if he were "hay-ness, itself". He must be related to every "being", therefore, at its most fundamental/primary level. If "a being" is being something at all, then it is somehow related to the-act-of-being. If "a being" IS that act, I'm not sure the experience would be finitely intelligible like the rest of our experiences. The intelligible finitude of "things" (or "beings") is enough to know that it is not god.

Think of it this way: Imagine what it would be like to "discover" something as abstract as "being, itself". Imagine discovering "love, itself" or "truth, itself" or "beauty, itself" or "goodness, itself". Anything discovered as even remotely "concrete" is enough to tell you that it isn't god, or being, or love, or truth or beauty or goodness.

[addition made in edit]: "Being, itself" "truth, itself", "goodness, itself" etc. may not exist, but I'm pretty sure we recognize the difference pretty easily between "true things" and "truth, itself".

2) Only with some philosophies/theories/beliefs. You would first need a philosophy/theory/belief about the meaning of objectivity in order to attempt acting/judging objectively at all. For example, Excited Penguin was very adamant about the philosophy of naturalism. That is a philosophy about real objects and what can be validly learned and said about them. If it is a good philosophy, then it helps us "be objective" in an adequate way. If it is a bad philosophy, then it inhibits us from such a way.

(November 24, 2016 at 4:53 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 1:24 pm)Ignorant Wrote: I hold to a kind of philosophical naturalism. Things only exist as something, not as super-somethings. If things act in ways that their something "can't" do (e.g. 'miraculously'), then either it is a previously unknown ability of that thing, or it is the action of some other thing able to do that act within/through the original thing, or some combination of the two.

You're the most sensible theist I've ever known. Apologies for blowing up on you earlier this month. It said more about my current state of mind than about you.

[emoji106]

I'm a very flexible person(ality).

Thank you for the kind words! Apology accepted, Alasdair. There are no hard feelings, I assure you!