Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
(1) there was no juxtaposition between nature and SN prior to enlightenment., ancient world God and nature were fine together.
(2) term super nature meta physis, meta hamousios are first used around 500 by st Cyril then pseudo Dynonisius
(3) Duns Scotus stats speaking of Supra natura Latin in 1200s or so.
(4)that's 500 years after the term is first used it's only then that they start talking about any kind of juxtaposition
(5) these differences are recognized by modern anthropologists beginning with the great Emile Durkheim
backed by major theologians and anthropologists' quoted MJ Scheeben the top Thomistic philosopher of 19th century. It's in use 900 years before the philosophes twisted it.
Words have specific meanings. This is why we have one word for naturalsupernaturall i.e. [1] of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
that is your fantasy
(2) ordinary dictionaries are based upon popular use so they are inadmissible since the Christian doctrine is not created by the masses.
(3) you are just repeating your paradigm that's not proof that it's right.re-stating your opinion is not p[roof.
since you already told us that you don't examine evidence why do you even pretend to ask for it? Getting evidence is not a problem. refusing to consider the evidence means there's no basis for discussion.
Self-published I presume.
of course you do. where's your book? where's your Ph.d? what university do you teach at? what academic journal did you run?
since the concept itself is a mystical construct what sense does that make to say that? your view of science is just a naturalistic construct. two can play the genetic fallacy game.
He's an idiot with a Ph.D. A person who takes his own ideological propaganda seriously and refuses to consider the ideas of the other side because he's so sure he's right is not a brilliant thinker.
[QUOTE]There is no such evidence.
we have but since you refuse to consider evidence no point in telling you. let the reader look back at previous posts.
Subjective nonsense based upon mystical woo worthy of Depak Chopra himself.
objectivity is a pretense. we cannot be objective but certain methodologies can yield objective facts.
Comment