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
Your “paradigm” is based upon an idiosyncratic use of language.
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 natural, i.e. “[1] the material world, especially as surrounding humankind”. And supernaturall 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.
So you’re claiming that you have 52 credible, evidence-based substantive arguments for the existence of a deity. I’m sure you believe that.
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?
I don’t think YOU know what “supernatural” is other than some mystical construct of your own imagination.
Jerry A. Coyne, is far from being an idiot. He’s a Ph.D, a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology. And you’re misrepresenting his argument. That’s’ not what he’s saying.
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]His argument is that IF there was any ‘supernatural’ input in the ‘natural’ world we would be able to detect it through scientific testing, because it is the role of science to test and verify the facts of the natural world. 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