God is natural, we just live in a supernatural world.

First, all the definitions come from Merriam-Webster. You say I am not reasonable for my definitions. I ask you why? Are they unreasonable because you are not accustomed to them? Is it because the religious factions you so passionately despise do not care to use these definitions? If not being reasonable and not being normal are the same thing, I will happily subject to your opinion. For the normal people tend to base their reason on emotion. I would rather my emotions stem from my reasoning. The definitions I choose are closer to the original meanings of the words, and thus, hold more weight and truth. They are not definitions that are products of confusion. I will review the opinions you hold on the definitions and judge if there is anything you say of any value. Before I continue, though I judge atheism harshly, it is the lesser of the two evils (atheism and religion). Atheists live in accordance to God much better than religious people do. Atheists come to all their conclusions by deduction; which is the first step to understanding God. They just never seek to understand what is left. If God didn't exist, the apparent chaotic state of the world wouldn't be apparent, it would be real. Now for your definitions. Nature: It is saying that what we see is what we get. This table really does exist. I really am typing on a computer. There really aren't miracles occurring all the time. Problem: this is the definition of reality, not nature. You say, what you see is what you get in reality. If that where the case, I would probably kill myself. How you see determines what you get. Supernatural: is something beyond this view of the natural world. That there is something transcendental beyond this desk or outside of the everything that exists. Problem: says who? Or is this another opinion you took as fact without looking back? If I am not reasonable, surely you will be able to judge correctly which of the following makes sense. Nature comes from the word natus which is the past tense of the word nasci in Latin. It originally meant to be born of the universe. So if an action is born of the universe it is a natural action. Super can be understood as better or excessive depending on one's level of intelligence. So, let's reason...can we conclude with solid evidence that there is a supernatural as in something better than anything born of the universe? Absolutely not. Can we conclude with solid evidence that there is a supernatural as in an excessive use of something born of the universe? The answer is yes. Your definition of supernatural is a perfect example of one of these things we over use; I will let you decide which one. We overuse the following gifts bestowed upon us by nature for our survival: Emotion: It has replaced our reasoning, which seems to be used rarely and only for instant gratification. People see spiders and shiver in fear even though they very well know that it is harmless. Have you ever see an animal kill themselves because they were depressed? Senses: don't even get me started. We live for our senses. We won't eat certain foods for idiotic reasons. We dress certain ways for visual appeal. We listen to music to make ourselves feel better. We use perfume etc. Necessity (or its mutation, desire): All we ever do is want more and more and more of one thing or another. The universe gave birth to necessity. We need to eat. We have choices of what we eat. We now have an unnecessary (superfluous) amount of food to eat. We are even dumb enough to like some foods better than another based on taste (sense) instead of their utility to us. Imagination: Just as our emotion now guides our reasoning, our imagination guides our ideas. We are completely backwards from the way God (or nature) created us. Reasoning: with our emotions guiding our reasoning, we use it in the most obscure ways. Reasoning was given to us so we could understand the truth of things and the utility of things. Instead we use it to get rich, to get laid, to look good, and to make people love us or hate us depending on what we desire. Even this policy debate stuff I see on this website often; What is it achieving? I will probably be told that it shows intelligence and boosts wins. These two things are only for the ego. I can go on and on. So tell me whose definition is more logical. Mine or yours? I am not talking about publicly held belief of what these words mean, but what they really mean. Ultimate reality: above and transcendental to our existence and the stuff of real existence. Problem: please, please just put the definition of ultimate and the word reality together: The reality most remote in space or time, Basic, fundamental or original reality. You keep saying that God is above when I have never said anything of that sort. He is below us and we must dig deep to find him. God is the most basic, stripped naked rules and sentiment of our existence. God is the foundation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "it's all pretty much a moot point because most of the definitions were ripped out of your hind-end and even then definitions are attempts to grasp how we use words not how words must be used..." There is one right way and one thousand wrong ways to do anything and everything. How must words be used, In accordance to widely held beliefs and opinions? For if that is the case, than I am surely using these words poorly and I apologize. " Also, I'd advise you to pay close attention to simply defining God into existence. Certainly if I defined elves as some form of reality, then I could try and parlay that into the conclusion that elves exist. You can't just define things as real things and then move on. There non-existence of God proper is enough to fault the topic you are trying to expound." Have you seen an elf, or any evidence of an elf? No, so it's not real. I have not seen God, but every moment I live is evidence of Gods existence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As for Morality, You will probably laugh at me and say we are not talking about the same thing, but I assure you we are. Animals and people follow the same laws of morality. Though we are trained to think differently. A clean and free will knows what he needs for his happiness. For this person, stealing is bad because it is not worth the risk. Killing is bad because it is pointless amongst other things. Having lots of sex when not married is bad because you might have kids when you're not ready or get an STD. get the picture? There is a right and wrong when it relates to necessity. There is no right and wrong when it relates to desire. If I sound arrogant so be it. The God I know was understood by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Alexis de Tocqueville and countless others. Intelligence is not needed to see God, only desire to know the truth. Religion was created to help man understand God. It seems, though, that it has pushed man away from God. Atheism is by far makes men more judicious, but that is only because you are closer to God whether you believe it or not.