On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On 2/3/13, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all
believes in God, and in some theories question like "is God a person" can
be an open
But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut
education which has impose to you only one notion of God.
Why should there be more than one notion designated by "God".
Do you not agree that there are multiple religions and each is free to
designate its own God or Gods? To choose one sect of one religion's
God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is
favoritism. Why do the atheists choose the Abrahamic God over the God
the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Deists, the Platonists,
or any of the myriads of religions since lost to history?
Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism.
You say it
is because it is the most popular. Even if that were so, Atheism
isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods.
Not at all. All the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more likely to exist than a
You would have to
be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every
person's) notion of God.
I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to put any credence
the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent,
person who wants us to worship him.
Not all do, which you failed to account for in your below probabilities.
Not all what do? I just took the proportion of the world population that self identified
as Christian, Muslim, and Jew. The major remaining portions are non-believers and Hindus.
Together their adherents constitute 54%
of those who
believe in a theist god. And if we take your view that atheists and
agnostics use the
same definition, then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some
why not call it something else.
The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics.
Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope?
That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different notions because
there is more than one king.
should there be only one meaning of God?
Because then we wouldn't know what "God" meant. Of course like many words it may refer to
more than one thing and there may be some variations. "Automobile" refers to lots of
different things, but they all have wheels, motive power, and carry people over surfaces.
That doesn't mean you can call an aircraft carrier and automobile.
This is not to say the word is meaningless. There are commonalities
between different religions and belief systems. In nearly all, it can
be said that God serves the role as an ultimate explanation. Whether
it is the Platonic God,
Can you cite Plato referring to such a being?
the Hindu God, the Sikh God, or the Arbrahamic
God, this property is almost universal. In this respect, it is
perfectly natural for Bruno to say under the arithmetical/CTM belief
system, God (the ultimate explanation) is arithmetical truth. Under
Aristotelianism, the ultimate explanation is matter (The buck stops
there), and so matter is the God of Aristotelianism.
Except that all those gods are persons. Arithmetical truth is (a) ill defined and (b) not
Would we be better off had we abandoned the word "Earth" or "World"
merely because we discovered it is round instead of flat, instead of
amending our notion of what the "Earth" or "World" really is?
The Earth is defined ostensively. If we could define god(s) ostensively then it would
make sense to say we discovered it's properties were different than we had supposed.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.