Of course not. That's primitive thinking. God must be greater and more perfect than we are, in order for us to be what we are. What he cannot be is something less than we are.
Jenny doesn't like to think anything could be greater than man, Authur. Everything she believes depends on that. Which is why, paradoxically, in post #334 she even mocks the very suprahuman insights that allow science to progress, pretending instead, one must suppose, that the flights of imagination and fantasy that define genius are at base mere syllogism, and that man has never slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.
Hmmm... So, God must have a belly button because we have belly buttons? God must have DNA because we have DNA? God must be material because we are material?
Of course not. That's primitive thinking. God must be greater and more perfect than we are, in order for us to be what we are. What he cannot be is something less than we are.
Jenny doesn't like to think anything could be greater than man, Authur. Everything she believes depends on that.
No, you're reading my words too defensively. I'm claiming there's no fundamental principle why something can only come from something "greater" than itself. I'm also claiming that the very statement is hopelessly vague until you can tell me how to measure this "greatness". It sounds like Arthur is saying "greatness" or "perfection" are substances that can only be divided but not created. So it's like God has a big tank full of "greatness", and he doles out a little bit into each human being.
So, if you can get beyond the defensive emotion & consider what's being claimed, can you tell me how you'd verify this categorical claim that the "greatness" of an entity must always be less than the "greatness" of that which it came from?
Which is why, paradoxically, in post #334 she even mocks the very suprahuman insights that allow science to progress, pretending instead, one must suppose, that the flights of imagination and fantasy that define genius are at base mere syllogism, and that man has never slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.
Post 334 said this:
My point is that you apparently refused to consider anything or anyone existing outside of the time/space/material universe.
Ah, well, I'll consider anything. Imagining things is fun. Fantasy is fun. But reality depends on what we see & what hangs together logically from that. Darn reality.
I love imagination. I depend on it daily. But if you examine all the flights of fancy, daydreams, insights, inspirations, & analogies that you come up with every day, you'd have to realize that the vast majority of them are junk. It is a good thing that these ideas went extinct inside your brain before you tried to put them into practice. Inspiration, flights of fancy, analogical thoughts, etc. are the raw materials - memetic mutations, if you will. But knowledge of how the real world hangs together, and the understanding that in the end it's only the real world that exists, forces us to filter out the inspirations that don't work & select only the ones that do.
This is how we progress in our mundane, day-to-day lives, and it's also how we progress when we're philosophizing. You seem to resent the fact that we have to filter out the fantasies that don't jibe with the real world. Fine. Let us mourn for all the inspirations & ideas we've ever had that turned out to be foolish. But please understand that this is one of Life's Big Lessons: Not every idea or inspiration we have deserves to be taken as seriously as it feels like when we first think of it.