14 Mar '19 02:35>1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke said
“Is a brave man sir who refers the Ghost to a dictionary.”
Quite so.
“Sentience is the ability to 'perceive or feel things' which is sufficient to render sonship's computer mouse quip a nonsense.“
‘Sonship ... quip ... nonsense’ — is a pleonasm. ‘Sonship’ will do.
“Would you not equate sentient 'perception' with my reference to 'awareness' of the divine?”
That depends on what one takes the nature of the divine to be. If the divine is taken to be immanent, then there is a plausible case to make for its being perceptible to sentient beings, since immanent divinity would be within the universe.
However, transcendent divinity would not be perceptible, since it does not appear within the universe. Transcendent divinity would be apprehensible only through reason (e.g., by inferring it to be the most likely cause of otherwise inexplicable effects, as the most plausible explanation for the origin of life, the universe, and everything), or through faith.
“Is a brave man sir who refers the Ghost to a dictionary.”
Quite so.
“Sentience is the ability to 'perceive or feel things' which is sufficient to render sonship's computer mouse quip a nonsense.“
‘Sonship ... quip ... nonsense’ — is a pleonasm. ‘Sonship’ will do.
“Would you not equate sentient 'perception' with my reference to 'awareness' of the divine?”
That depends on what one takes the nature of the divine to be. If the divine is taken to be immanent, then there is a plausible case to make for its being perceptible to sentient beings, since immanent divinity would be within the universe.
However, transcendent divinity would not be perceptible, since it does not appear within the universe. Transcendent divinity would be apprehensible only through reason (e.g., by inferring it to be the most likely cause of otherwise inexplicable effects, as the most plausible explanation for the origin of life, the universe, and everything), or through faith.