The proof of God
Current time: 11-23-2014, 02:32 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: arizona_logan
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 45
Views: 11257

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The proof of God
02-08-2012, 07:35 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2012 07:37 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #46
RE: The proof of God
(02-08-2012 07:06 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  So often the discussion revolves around the "design" of life/the-universe/everything, as in "intelligent design." Someone made a statement about "the design" of something or other, with the implication that OBviously it had to be a higher power to envision and create such a "design." But if you substitute the word "pattern" for "design" you see that the sentence, the question, becomes much less "loaded" towards a particular conclusion. I look at a cloud or a flower and I see a pattern, I do not see a "design." At least, to my understanding, the word "design" is an active sort of a word. It implies someone or something taking an action, and that action is the act of designing. Whereas "pattern" is simply the result of actions, actions which may or may not have an intent behind them.

I value that point significantly. It's like language, hence the words that comprise it, is so "us", so inward to outward perspective, we find it too natural to not transfer it to and upon any and every thing. It's nigh impossible to speak, thus even find the words, that aren't that concentric (homocentric? anthropomorphic, thanks WorBlux?).
The word pattern is one fine exception, for sure. I know for myself, I find it often a strain to speak in the simple, accurate terms of it just "is" what "it" is.
If I may, a quote I recently found (and am repeating already):
Quote:The crucial point to be considered ... is the relationship of language and reality, between words and not-words. Except as we understand this relationship, we run the grave risk of straining the delicate connection between words and facts, of permitting our words to go wild, and so of creating for ourselves fabrications of fantasy and delusion.
-- Wendell Johnson, as quoted in Language Thought and Action

Perhaps the third, or grey, but crucial area of words versus not-words is the misapplication of words? (or maybe "girls words gone wild" captures that; that barn door open yet again...;^)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)