Peter Kirby

Because "God" is a word used in everyday discourse. I have a concept of "God" just as much as I have a concept of "Lochness Monster."

Because "that it does exist" does not form part of any definition of a being or class of beings, let alone make sense as the sole component of a definition. The characteristics of a thing are described independently of whether it is instantiated in this world or not. That it is existent tells us nothing about what it is.

best,
Peter Kirby

stretch

Hi Peter,


Fair enough. But you did start off your thread with an apparent attempt to capture what a 'common' theist means by God. And it seems fairly obvious that the term is not always used equivocally by theists and atheists.

Well, for a 'common' theist, God is the source of existence. And as the source of existence/first cause, existence is one of God's major properties. From a theistic perspective, with one exception (i.e., God), existence cannot proceed from non-existence.

- denise

Philosoft

That's me, for the most part.

I get stuck on (1) because when I am asked to imagine a thing, I can ordinarily associate some visual concept with it. If I was asked to "imagine a mind," I might picture a typical human brain, since materialism generally holds that the mind is a function of the brain. But when asked to "imagine a disembodied mind," I lose the material ground to which I previously associated the concept mind. Thus, I am left with imagining a set of behaviors that are typical of a mind, but I have no real concept of the mind itself.

stretch

re: imagine a ...

Does it make sense to include the activity of a human mind as part of the definition of something ....

Is 'imagine a line that is everywhere equidistant from a point', a valid (part of a) definition of a circle?

Peter Kirby

I did not suggest that the word "God" is always used the same way. I was suggesting that the word "God" sometimes has meaning, which would not be contradicted by multiple meanings. I would like to hear from those who assert that the word has no meaning.

"Cause of all else" makes sense as part of a definition and corresponds to my (2) above. But "one whose essence is existence" is twaddle.

best,
Peter Kirby

stretch

Am I to infer from that you don't want theists to comment on your proposed definition of what theists mean by the term God?

If so, no problem ...

Peter Kirby

You can remove the verbs from your reading of the original post if they bother you. I was trying to be amusing, describing a "method" of imagining what a God would be. I suppose that a geometry teacher would say the same thing, accompanied by a picture on the chalk board, in introducing the concept of a circle to her students.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I never asserted anything more than that some theists would understand "God" in this way. It is impossible to form a definition of "God" that all theists would agree on. And though my post was aimed at a certain type of respondent, I am not excluding others from commenting.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Do you associate any meaning with the idea of mind-body dualism alleged of human beings? Or is that idea not only false but meaningless?

best,
Peter Kirby

stretch

Peter,

ok ... eventually i'll get used to people's personalities and writing styles around here ....


Amusing is good

I must admit that atheists trying to come up with a suitable definition of God, can on the surface seem to be a bit amusing ...