The god semantics language of argument

[David T]

And whichever one [it] is, if [it]'s real, if [it] has objective existence, if [it] exists independently of anyone's imagination, then how can we tell [it]'s a god? Not until I started turning over the question, What is a real god? did I understand that this is a truly basic problem for thoughtful religious belief.

I know there are thoughtful believers on RF, but so far I haven't found any of them willing to discuss it in those terms.

If It exists totally free from the human imagination as is not beholden to or encapsulated by the human imagination or any concepts created by the midget intellect, and is trancendental then that would be god. Does that actually literally exist? Based on midget measurement no and yes!!!

So the real question for the midget is why the lack of self awareness of being so short?!!!!! The midget self labels itself "higher functioning" region of the cranium. And yet there is zero evidence of that actually except in its own mind. The only thing i know that is larger than reality is the midget according to itself. Its called "normal" Egaaads!

 

[blü 2]

If It exists totally free from the human imagination as is not beholden to or encapsulated by the human imagination or any concepts created by the midget intellect, and is trancendental then that would be god. Does that actually literally exist? Based on midget measurement no and yes!!!

To call the human intellect 'midget' requires us to compare it to a wholly imaginary 'intellect' belonging to a wholly imaginary being, doesn't it?

Likewise, all the purported examples of 'the transcendental' that I'm aware of are imaginary, which would be consistent with an imaginary god. Or do you have something both transcendental (in this context) and real, something with objective existence, something you can show us, in mind?

So the real question for the midget is why the lack of self awareness of being so short?!!!!!

You're still making comparisons with an imaginary 'intellect'. I don't agree with your choice of that word, or its implication, but you can persuade me with good evidence. If you say this larger intellect, compared to which human intellect is very small, belongs to a being that is real ─ has objective existence ─ then nothing stops you from showing this being to me and giving me a satisfactory demonstration of its intellect. In that case, please do so and I'll be persuaded. But if, as I think, it's merely something you've imagined, then you won't be able to do that, will you.

 

[David T]

To call the human intellect 'midget' requires us to compare it to a wholly imaginary 'intellect' belonging to a wholly imaginary being, doesn't it?

Likewise, all the purported examples of 'the transcendental' that I'm aware of are imaginary, which would be consistent with an imaginary god. Or do you have something both transcendental (in this context) and real, something with objective existence, something you can show us, in mind?
You're still making comparisons with an imaginary 'intellect'. I don't agree with your choice of that word, or its implication, but you can persuade me with good evidence. If you say this larger intellect, compared to which human intellect is very small, belongs to a being that is real ─ has objective existence ─ then nothing stops you from showing this being to me and giving me a satisfactory demonstration of its intellect. In that case, please do so and I'll be persuaded. But if, as I think, it's merely something you've imagined, then you won't be able to do that, will you.

It requires us to get a clue about nature actually. I am very grounded.

A hilarious quote from a rather clueless 16th century european scientist. His view continues to this day. Now its a joke but hey its normal.

Nature … is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men.

 

[blü 2]

A hilarious quote from a rather clueless 16th century european scientist. His view continues to this day. Now its a joke but hey its normal.

Nature … is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men.

Think of it as a poem from a romantic era rather than a statement of the situation as we presently understand it. Maybe something like:

The proposition that the rules of physics apply equally throughout space and time appears to be consistent with our observations. Some evidence-based arguments for changes of particular constants across time have been presented, but so far have not persuaded the scientific community.​