On 12 Jan 2013, at 17:32, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that definition of God [ a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe] . I find it unlikely that most theists would incorporate every facet of that definition.

That's true. Many theists, the more intelligent ones anyway, reject the idea of God but they become so in love with a word they play a silly and rather cowardly game. If, as so many have, you redefine the word "God" to mean "a power greater than myself"

... and responsible for your existence.

then I am a theist who firmly believes in God because I believe that bulldozers exist.

Bulldozers are not responsible for your existence. But you might believe in a God if you believe that there is a primary physical world from which you would have emerged. It is part of Aristotle theology. I tend to be "atheist" with respect to that God. With comp, the "ONE" is very simple, as it is the "ultimate 3p truth" from we originate. You can take arithmetical truth.

But if by "God" you mean a being with super-human abilities then God is just a comic book superhero (or supervillan) and I am a agnostic about something like that actually existing somewhere in the universe.

OK. me too.

> It doesn't matter if 95% of theisms are ones you find fault with; it only takes one correct theism to make atheism wrong, which is why I think it is an untenable and illogical position.

Obviously I can't refute every one of the tens of thousands of Gods that humans have invented over the eons, but your statement assumes that if there is no hard evidence for or against a theory then there is a 50% chance that it is correct and thus worthy of serious consideration. And that is idiotic.

I think that Telmo did not say that. He just said that one consistent notion of God is enough to make atheism into a dogmatic (non rational) belief (as opposed to the natural scientific attitude: cautiousness and agnosticism).

> John said that he "just believes in one less god" than I do, but he refused to say what that one God was that I believed in but he doesn't.

I don't believe in a omnipotent omniscient being that created the universe and I think you do.

I have never met a theologian genuinely believing in both omnipotence and omniscience. Since Thomas, christian theologians knows that it is inconsistent.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to