About divine love
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-05-2014, 06:42 AM
RE: About divine love
Hello EvolutionKills, I'm glad to read your words again.

Please don't get the impression that I want to convince you about anything; I am simply describing my own subjective and possibly mistaken view for anyone else's consideration. If your view differs from mine, I'm happy with it.

One of your concerns seems to be my apparently wrong usage of "meaning" as a synonym for "implication", but I don't even have to go to the dictionary to check that, because Bucky Ball has been kind enough to bring a definition to this thread. From his post #73:

(28-05-2014 05:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  mean·ing
noun: meaning; plural noun: meanings

what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.
"the meaning of the word “supermarket”"
synonyms: definition, sense, explanation, denotation, connotation, interpretation, nuance More
"the word has several different meanings"
implied or explicit significance.
"he gave me a look full of meaning"
synonyms: significance, sense, signification, import, gist, thrust, drift, implication, tenor, message, essence, substance, purport, intention More
"the meaning of his remark"
expressiveness, significance, eloquence, implications, insinuations
"his smile was full of meaning"
important or worthwhile quality; purpose.
"this can lead to new meaning in the life of older people"
synonyms: value, validity, worth, consequence, account, use, usefulness, significance, point More
"my life has no meaning"
(Emphasis added by me)

The word "meaning" can be attached to many notions and I already agreed with you that one of them could be "purpose". But one of them is indeed "implication", not according to me but according to the definition provided by someone who is most likely not trying to help my position.

Can we not agree that the word "meaning" can be used as a synonym for "implication"? Should we erase that out from the dictionary where Bucky Ball found it? I am not saying that it should be used only in that sense; how other people use their words is for other people to decide. What I am saying is that when I talk about the meaning of a particular arrangement of matter, or a specific pattern of change, I am generally referring to the set of implications it conveys. Does that really sound so far fetched?

Now, let me please bring forward a piece of text not written by me, but by whoever writes the contents of the website HyperPhysics courtesy of the Georgia State University. Not because I think they are the most credible authority, but because it was one of the first results I got, out of apparently over three million, when I searched online for the expression "implications water polarity":

Quote:Under "Dipolar Bonding in Water":

The polar nature of water molecules allows them to bond to each other in groups and is associated with the high surface tension of water. The polar nature of the water molecule has many implications. It causes water vapor at sufficient vapor pressure to depart from the ideal gas law because of dipole-dipole attractions. This can lead to condensation and phenomena like cloud formation, fog, the dewpoint, etc. It also has a great deal to do with the function of water as the solvent of life in biological systems.
(Emphasis added by me. Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...iph2o.html)

Cloud formation, fog, the dewpoint, etc. are implications of the polar nature of the water molecule, and not only according to me. Yet those phenomena are not dependent on the existence of living beings in order for them to occur. Condensation of water molecules into tiny droplets can occur even in the absence of living beings.

Yes, something able to understand notions is required in order for the implications conveyed by a particular arrangement of matter or pattern of change to be understood, but no, no living beings are required in order for implications to be conveyed; to be had, if I can use the same verb that people from GSU used in the sentence I highlighted.

Even in the absence of living things, the fundamental force of gravity still means that material structures will be attracted to one another; whether living things know about it or not is irrelevant because matter is attracted to more matter regardless of whether anything knows about it or not. Dead bodies are attracted to the ground as much as living bodies (or even more; living bodies may be able to produce a lift greater than their own weight).

I am not saying that there can be intelligence outside the scope of living beings, but there can be implications; the universe is "full" of implications (although I put that between quotation marks because implications are abstract entities; they don't fill any volume).

But if any of this does not seem to be the case from your perspective, don't worry about it; it may be that I am partially or completely mistaken. I'm not asking you to believe any of my crap; I am simply sharing my crap in case you or anyone else is interested in reading it. Please don't be offended if we don't view things in exactly the same way.

I thank you for another valuable contribution to this thread. Have fun!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 09:07 AM
RE: About divine love
(28-05-2014 04:22 PM)living thing Wrote:  please don’t forget that English is not my native language

What is your native language? Smile It's a global forum and we have quite a diverse bunch here.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: