An easy way out of becoming clear in what we mean. Clarity enhances any discussion rather than getting bogged down. It is sad that your arguments do not allow for experiences that can only be explained by metaphor, allegory, analogy or myth. Many scriptures describe how an experience felt for lack of words. Your whole approach cancels these out without consideration. I know of many people who have had experiences that have guided them in life, but which they cannot explain. Very often it has been life changing.
In addition to this, your use of the word supernatural is so unclear that the question of belief in it cannot be addressed. It is the same when in Britain people are asked whether they believe in Brexit - what does that word entail? What are we talking about?
Yes, this is important. Two meanings get mixed together, often - one is that supernatural means stuff that does not follow the laws of the universe, is transcendent. The other is that it is stuff not yet verified through science. The latter of course could be natural. One could believe in wood spirits and psychic phenomena and ghosts and deities, but consider these natural. If one never teases out which of these meanings, you just get people talking past each other. And often the skeptics think they have proven something by saying that you cannot know supernatural things, since they cannot be experienced, since they are transcendent. Which is just sophistry based on framing the issue with one definition of ‘supernatural.’ Which is precisely what greatest does.
How are you using the word “perceiving” ~~observing, looking at or perhaps we can even use the term "subjective thinking?
Perhaps a better word to use in your quote instead of perceive in this case is to understand. Some might perceive or see something which to them would be considered to be “supernatural” in nature, as for example, a beautiful light pillar, but at the same time they do not understand that it is a natural phenomenon. Anything which we do not understand or have knowledge of, because this world is so beautifully awesome, can be experienced as having God’s or the gods’ hand[s] in it.
Perhaps one of the answers to your question is IMAGINATION. Can we, in actuality, perceive God? Yet we discuss what we have no “real” idea of to no end. I may be wrong in this though.
It was stated by some. IOW if someone says superhatural things cannot be perceived and ghosts are superatural things, then we can rule out ghosts, they are just framing the issue in a random way as if it is a proof. Perhaps ghosts end up in the category supernatual merely because they are not confirmed by science but are perceived by some.
The same knife separates the Natural from the Supernatural as that which separates Theism from atheism : faith.
The mytais supernatural events described in the bible can be either ascribed to truthful reporting, or fake observation.
But it can be that both kinds of descriptions are merely different ways of apprehending And understanding of such events.
Remember this one thing in favor of the later, God reveals Himself only to those He deems worthy÷
I agree with what you’re stating here, I am just confused because it was stated that supernatural is meaning it can’t be perceived. So if we can’t perceive it then there is no observation that can be made, even in the Bible, at least not by humans at this time or before in terms of evolution/ability.
If it reveals itself and is perceived then it is not supernatural? Is supernatural always growing like wisdom and questions and answers? is it only what we miss to perceive in a present moment or is it forever not able to be perceived?
The bottom line is that if you or I do not trust that if either of us gets bogged down in our chat on the main issues of the O.P., due to having strayed to far out of range of our definitions, we will let the other know it.
Depends on what one means by supernatural. It depends on the belief in question and how it formed. Did one acquire the belief simply because someone said it, but one has no experiential or consequential phenomena otherwise? That could certainly be problematic. Though, obviously, intelligent people can have problems or make mistakes or be mislead, so the framing of the thread and this question is unnecessarily insulting and binary (read: confused).
The ancients? Some did not think the supernatural - depending still on the definition of that term did not. Many did. I believed I mentioned before that practices can lead to experiences that many people think confirm. IOW if one read this one would think the only way to come to a belief is to listen to/read others, iow to be convinced via language.
The Alice experiment shows that children can be convinced someone is there who is not. This doesn’t cover the various ways people come to believe in supernatural entities - however that term is being defined.
This is incorrectly binary, since many people arrive at their beliefs in supernatural entities without the presence of preachers, sometimes despite what the preachers tell them it is ok to notice/experience. It also assumes that the preachers are lying, as rule, rather than that they are genuine believers, which is obviously the case, and, in fact your own arguments indicate that that is likely, since they were once children.
if there is no God it does not automatically follow that one should seek a human leader or spiritual guide.
Karpel Tunnel, So, you are not necessarily saying that the word “supernatural” has no meaning in the OP since obviously it does to GIA and would it not also to others as the focal point of the discussion?
You are just using that statement as a tool perhaps to get back on track?
I don’t think it has a clear meaning or a consistant one. I suppose I might be trying to get things back on track. Or on track. And since the title of the thread implicitly insults anyone who believes in something supernatural, I think it would likely be useful to know what he means. Obviously he includes the idea of deities, but the term usually counts for more.
You meant me personally? Do you really see those words as coming out of my mouth?
[b]Apotheosis (from Greek ἀποθέωσις from ἀποθεόω/ἀποθεῶ, apotheoo/apotheo “to deify”; in Latin deificatio “making divine”; also called divinization and deification) is the glorification of a subject to divine level and, most commonly, the treatment of a human like a god. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre.
In theology, apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature. In art, the term refers to the treatment of any subject (a figure, group, locale, motif, convention or melody) in a particularly grand or exalted manner.[/b]
The term “I Am” to me simply means that I have affirmed my existence, along with every part and parcel of my being, which by the way is still in the process of evolving, becoming and coming to know myself. I am, in a sense, always in the process of “growing up”. I am sometimes reminded by Life that I have not as yet grown up and perhaps never will be. I am not such a fixed entity.
Why would I prefer to think of myself as a god - or in this case, a goddess. I rather enjoy being a human being.
I believed that your username referred to God but are you saying that you have reached apotheosis?
As far as the title of the thread goes, I am not so sure that it does necessarily insult someone who does believe in something supernatural. I re-read the title more than a few times and allowed it to simmer in me but I did not perceive it in that way. There is just a question being asked and simply because the word “intelligent” is used it just does not seem like there is ground enough to think of it as an insult. As Jung said, truth needs the concern of many voices.
I may be wrong here but I kind of think that most in here would know what he meant by the word supernatural since he seemed to only speak of deities for the most part. But I agree that he could have been much more specific and included everything in a list that could be perceived as being supernatural or above the natural . He might have extended that to all categories but his mindset is predominately about God or gods.
You yourself like to think way out of the box and pack away a great many things for your trip.
If it cannot be perceived, then it cannot be talked about, the barrier is language via imagery. If there is no imagery then there can be no language to define or paint said imagery or lack of.
Even what appears to be the imagination is still perceiving. And if supernatural can’t be perceived then it is not comprehensible and not able to be put into words of language. Hence, no discussion of it.
Yes, but as you can see from how apotheosis is defined, many of the labels cannot be given to one’s self. They can only be given to one.
Can I say I am divine? No. Only others can label me as such. Like Jesus, I can only ask, who do they say I am like?
We are all evolving perfection. You admitting that you are the final arbiter of your thinking and your own moral guide is, I think, a healthy claim for an adult to make.
It involves self forgiveness and a deeper self love, which helps us express our love to others.
lol So again, I ask you: Greatest I Am refers to whom?
.
And would you like that designation? What would you say to someone who said that you were divine?
I think what Christ actually asked/said was: "Who do they say I am? or Who do you say I am?
Why did Jesus ask the question? Was he confused about himself and needed clarity or did he want to know what others thought of him, of who he was?
Quite frankly, I think that that is a very good question which we could ask of one another (not you and me per se lol) but we have to be prepared to give the answer some thought, not necessarily to accept the answer but better still, we need to kind of know and trust the ones we ask to give us a balanced and impartial picture of our self.
Are you calling us humans “perfection” or are you saying that we are evolving toward perfection?
I am not so sure that we can ever become perfect…just better than we were perhaps.
What words did I use to give you that impression? Does being the final arbiter of my thinking mean that I am not capable of changing my mind? Is it a form of stubborn thinking where I refuse to see something different?
When it comes to certain hard questions, like should this person be taken off the ventilator because he will most probably never again have any kind of a quality life, I am not so much then the final arbiter of my thinking…well, perhaps I am at some point but I suppose that BTFAOMT does not necessarily require me to be right just to make the best ethical decision I can.
How do we come to forgive self? What does that entail?
