RE: Your position on naturalism
November 23, 2016 at 7:24 pm
(This post was last modified: November 23, 2016 at 7:25 pm by Ignorant.)
(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.
