US Oligarchs Find Common Ground In Circumventing Law

[Blitzers]

So if "man" is apart of nature then all that man does should be considered natural right? If man is not apart of nature then where did man come from? He obviously didn't evolve from a single celled organism otherwise we'd deem man part of nature and all that he does natural. So where did man come from? Or better yet, who CREATED "Man"

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is it not in the nature of man to question and defy? If so, then isn't that natural within man?

Isn't it arrogant of man to think he knows what nature wants, needs, and how it operates. Once again is man apart of nature?

What is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole just as what is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the part.

The difference between man and nature is man's sentience and his ability to reason. If nature also possesses those qualities then it is either malevolent or impotent.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole just as what is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the part.

The difference between man and nature is man's sentience and his ability to reason. If nature also possesses those qualities then it is either malevolent or impotent.

If man's seperation from nature is the ability to reason and perceive, then where did these abilities derive from? It's not like one day nature said "ok evolutionary process the next cycle will be a mouse and we will give it the ability of perception and reason." These traits must have been present within the most basic micro-organism from the start in order for them to develop over millions of years. Environmental Adaptation wouldn't have caused that. If these traits did exist from the smallest microbe then all activity engaged by man is a natural occurrence and is working as intended by nature. What about plant life? Seems like it got dicked in the ability to perceive and reason.

Option 1. Man evolved from nature which from its earliest microbe had the ability to perceive and reason in an infantile capacity unidentifiable by science, and all of "Man's" activity is Natural and coincides with Nature's intent.

Option 2. Man didn't evolve from nature but was granted the ability of perception and reason by a creator. Activity engaged by man is seperate from Nature and may or may not be beneficial to nature depending on the free will and ambitions "Man" possesses.

[maskedmelon]

No it is a benefit of an enlarged neocortex resulting from weakened jaw muscles due to a genetic muscular disorder shared by all modern humans, except for those with microcephaly who suffer from severely diminished mental capacity due to smaller brains.

[maskedmelon]

That doesn't preclude the possibility of a creator though. It is possible, we just have no way of knowing. If there is one though it is either malevolent or impotent. I suppose it could be apathetic or dead too. It is most certainly not benevolent and omnipotent.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No it is a benefit of an enlarged neocortex resulting from weakened jaw muscles due to a genetic muscular disorder shared by all modern humans, except for those with microcephaly who suffer from severely diminished mental capacity due to smaller brains.

Nice deflect.

I am just engaging in a freelance philosophical exercise. There is no hidden agenda behind my inquiry. I just want to understand.

Is man apart of nature?
Yes or No

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That doesn't preclude the possibility of a creator though. It is possible, we just have no way of knowing. If there is one though it is either malevolent or impotent. I suppose it could be apathetic or dead too. It is most certainly not benevolent and omnipotent.

Wouldn't a creator have to be "all things" not just the ones you suggest?

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nice deflect.

I am just engaging in a freelance philosophical exercise. There is no hidden agenda behind my inquiry. I just want to understand.

Is man apart of nature?
Yes or No

Yes , but as I have said, what is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole and what is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the part.

Are we unable to differentiate between trees and leaves or guidance systems and missiles because they are parts and wholes?

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wouldn't a creator have to be "all things" not just the ones you suggest?

That is an interesting thought. I don't know. I suppose the appropriate response would be

"No, because that'd be a paradox"

To which the reply would be,

"Well then the universe is a paradox."

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wouldn't a creator have to be "all things" not just the ones you suggest?

No. Is Rogean all things p99? The creator imo is separate from the creation. You cant apply the same rules to the creator. Pantheist will disagree but who cares what they think since its all "one" and you just get recycled with no lasting repercussions.