"Sntjohnny, you need to understand something about word meanings. They change over time. That's not to say that etymologies aren't interesting. They just can't be used to make the kind of argument that you are about to make."
Gee, I had no idea. My point in making use of the etymology was only to show you that I'm not pulling this out of my butt. If it so happens that the word 'supernatural' now means "Comic Book Hero" that is no skin off my back, but don't think for a moment that just because the word has become bastardized, the concept has gone away. I was trying to remember back to the earliest writer making this same sort of argument and I recalled Augustine using it in his Confessions in his discussion of evil.
So, we have returned via a different path to the the same conclusion: YOU insist on dictating what WE CHRISTIANS believe. Pick a different word, if you like, but if 'supernatural' no longer does it, continuing to use it according to its watered down notion doesn't fly. Thus, for you to continue to categorize the Christian God along with Zeus et al is only to engage a strawman. I am prepared to deal with the OP of the thread, but not while you continue to refuse to recognize the qualitative difference between Christian theism and everything else you're going after.
"Not really. The sense in which Dawkins and I use the word is perfectly legitimate, given modern usage conventions. It refers to phenomena that contravene the known laws of nature or physics. He is quite consistent in that usage, and so am I."
One notes that in specialized fields a words can have much more narrow usages. Neither you nor Dawkins have any right or privilege to take a 'modern usage convention' and plug it into the arguments that the specialists (the theologians) are making as though there is no difference. But this is neither here nor there.
I am not necessarily trying to argue here that we use the word in this narrow, more robust sense. If the word in its 'modern usage' has ceased to accurately describe Christian theism, that may be the fact- it also remains a fact then that Christian theism is not accurately conveyed, isn't it?
Now, what we are witnessing in this thread is a refusal by you to come to grips with this fact and allow the position you are trying to rebut, criticize, and explore, be presented the way its proponents present it.
It is not worth anybody's time to deal with your OP, or this thread, any further, until you come to terms with this very simple matter of intellectual integrity and courtesy: when one wishes to think critically about someone else's position, one allows the other side to present that position on their own terms. It so happens that the position I'm reflecting has not changed for thousands of years, and I am representing it fairly and consistently. If you insist on retaining the use of the word 'supernatural' and also insist on using it in its non-technical sense, make the translation in your mind, either by offering a different word or by simply understanding that when we say 'supernatural' we do not mean what you mean, and therefore there is a sense in which the 'lumping' you wish to do is untenable.
I would like to take this moment to thank you for this thread. I sometimes have conversations with fellow Christians who don't think apologetics is very important. When I give examples of things that people think they often say "People REALLY don't believe that!" And I say, "Yes, even- and maybe especially- educated people believe that!" This thread is going to make great illustration fodder. Thanks. :)
"Word meaning is determined by conventional usage in a population of speakers, not your personal opinion."
You're still focusing on the matter as though I'm trying to hold your feet to a definition. I'm trying to explain to you a concept.
"So you say. And, by the way, be careful what you say about Hindu gods."
In my other thread on this I say "some brands of Hinduism" recognizing this.
More importantly, if you don't believe me when I present Christian theism the way I do, stop fiddling around talking to Bubba and fellow atheists like Dawkins to get your information, dig through the texts on your own. You'll see when I say 'my scheme' I'm reflecting the orthodox Christian POV which is not my invention at all.
"Any being that can perform miracles, has supernatural powers. "
Says you- leaving aside any definition of 'miracles' and 'supernatural powers' I note.
"I think that you have overestimated your understanding of the word 'supernatural'. There is more to it than just etymology, not that you have really nailed that subject, either."
I think you are too big for your britches and being pretty unfair at the same time. To quote myself:
"Not that I think that is comprehensive, but just so you don't think I'm making this up. Copy/paste:"
The point and purpose of what I said was explicitly stated, including the acknowledgement that it is not by any means comprehensive. This is the sort of behavior that really rankles me.
"Perhaps. When Dawkins treats the existence of God as a scientific matter, he is quite open about the fact that he could be wrong."
No, he's really not. He doesn't say he could be wrong- he says he doesn't care.
"The best you can say is that there may be some plane of existence where evolution isn't necessary to produce intelligent beings. "
lol.
Someone else jump in here. This is killing me.
Have a good trip.
Author
Topic: What are gods? (Read 2600 times)