26.2
kairosfocus
September 14, 2011 at 12:05 am
F/N: Vocab correction needed:
MS: I think that saying, ” the laws of nature ie.- the suspension of natural laws”– is a very limited and inaccurate usage of the word supernatural. Supernatural definitely has the connotation of being supernatural as in above and beyond(exceeding) natural, not necessarily the suspension of.
Let’s go to the tape . . .
Am HD:
>> su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
n.
That which is supernatural.
super·natu·ral·ly adv.
super·natu·ral·ness n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. >>
That is the NORMAL meaning of this term.
And, in that context, the work of engineers etc. is most definitely not regarded as supernatural, but instead — cf “state of the art” technology [a clue . . . ] — as art [Gk., TECHNE, in Plato's term in The Laws, Bk X], cf. here on and here on.
That we see this sort of attempted agenda-serving redefinition of supernatural is revealing as to what is really going on.
GEM of TKI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah gordo, that is the normal meaning of the term "supernatural". What you obviously don't realize, you incredibly stupid moron, is that you just admitted that your belief in the christian god is a belief in a supernatural thing, and that your belief that the christian god is the designer and creator of the universe and everything in it, including all living things, is a belief that a supernatural thing (god) is the designer and creator of the universe and everything in it. So much for your claims that the so-called 'ID theory/inference' is not religious, and so much for the so-called "ID theory/inference' not depending on a supernatural designer/creator/god.
You IDiots are so fucking stupid that in your haste to try to make yourselves look smart in arrington's contest thread you instead are making yourselves out to be the dumbest dolts on Earth. You're actually arguing against your own beliefs! ROFLMAO!
By the way, do you have wet dreams about Plato?
kairosfocus
September 14, 2011 at 12:05 am
F/N: Vocab correction needed:
MS: I think that saying, ” the laws of nature ie.- the suspension of natural laws”– is a very limited and inaccurate usage of the word supernatural. Supernatural definitely has the connotation of being supernatural as in above and beyond(exceeding) natural, not necessarily the suspension of.
Let’s go to the tape . . .
Am HD:
>> su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
n.
That which is supernatural.
super·natu·ral·ly adv.
super·natu·ral·ness n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. >>
That is the NORMAL meaning of this term.
And, in that context, the work of engineers etc. is most definitely not regarded as supernatural, but instead — cf “state of the art” technology [a clue . . . ] — as art [Gk., TECHNE, in Plato's term in The Laws, Bk X], cf. here on and here on.
That we see this sort of attempted agenda-serving redefinition of supernatural is revealing as to what is really going on.
GEM of TKI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah gordo, that is the normal meaning of the term "supernatural". What you obviously don't realize, you incredibly stupid moron, is that you just admitted that your belief in the christian god is a belief in a supernatural thing, and that your belief that the christian god is the designer and creator of the universe and everything in it, including all living things, is a belief that a supernatural thing (god) is the designer and creator of the universe and everything in it. So much for your claims that the so-called 'ID theory/inference' is not religious, and so much for the so-called "ID theory/inference' not depending on a supernatural designer/creator/god.
You IDiots are so fucking stupid that in your haste to try to make yourselves look smart in arrington's contest thread you instead are making yourselves out to be the dumbest dolts on Earth. You're actually arguing against your own beliefs! ROFLMAO!
By the way, do you have wet dreams about Plato?
