sacred geometry and crop circles

[stereologist]

sa·cred(sā′krĭd)

adj.

1.

Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.

2.

Worthy of religious veneration:

the sacred teachings of the Buddha.

3.

Made or declared holy:

sacred bread and wine.

4.

Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person:

sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.

5.

Worthy of respect; venerable.

6.

Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

I'm not going to defend religious abuse; just stating that sacred is intrinsic value. If religions understood that then there would be no problems caused by them. You could say intrinsic value is subjective or you can teach people to objectively value what is already sacred.

Again this supports my position, not yours. Definition 5 is based on human decision making. It is humans that decide it is worthy of respect; venerable. it is humans that bestow the notion of sacred.

This idea of an intrinsic value is a human decision. There is nothing objective about sacred. It is completely subjective.

Edited March 6, 2014 by stereologist

[aquatus1]

Guys, you are going around in circles.

[stereologist]

You claim that "The mountain was sacred long before people." As with all things on earth the mountain had a beginning. When did it become sacred? Was it sacred before orogeny produced the mountain? Will it be sacred after erosion destroys the mountain?

A simpler example would be holy water. Was that water always holy? Will it be holy when it evaporates or is poured down a drain? Is it possible to determine the difference between holy water and water not holy by some test external to humans?

Sacred is like all religious concepts. It is external to the physical world. There is no test that shows us it exists. It is a concept from man applied to the world we live in. It is an untestable belief.

Can markprice show us anything that is sacred? Sure. But others will not think it is sacred because the idea of sacred for that object is due to markprice and possibly others as labeling it as such. People can make claims about it being sacred or how long it is sacred, but none of that can be shown to be true. It is simply a belief.

The basis for this interruption in the discussion about geometry was my statement that a shape is not sacred because somewhere, someplace, sometime someone labelled it as sacred. Laver would like to believe that once a shape is labelled as sacred it is always sacred. He seems to think that his argument for a particular set of forced geometric steps is somehow more meaningful because laver can apply a label to it. That label of sacred is assigned by man. Humans have a belief and that belief has no detectable counterpart in the physical world.