On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:02 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare >> them. >> > > I use the exact same definition that BILLIONS of people on this planet > use: the word "God" refers to an intelligent conscious being who created > the universe. And the most important part is intelligent and conscious and > being! > That's a philosophical argument, btw. You may emerge from your homemade closet someday. Unfortunately, I am immune to your rhetorical "matter-of-factness arguments" with straw men + caps everywhere, and I doubt that billions of people understand your philosophical usage of "intelligent", "conscious", and the clear philosophically-existentialist slant of using "being" (i.e. your "doer-matter-of-factness- straight-shooter-consistency-brutal-honesty-performance-of-non-philosophy-hard-viagran-scienceness" ;-) ). Just admit it: you're a closet philosopher with identity crises. Since you won't see a therapist, I am here to tell you: "It's ok. Everything will be alright. Nobody will hurt you for making philosophical points." But even granting that, and that your appeal to majority opinion might hold in court: Science and theology, responsibly practiced, thankfully have higher standards than this. The Greeks did. Even the ignoramuses that Einstein kept reading. > Calling anything less "God" is a betrayal of the language. > Betrayal of DA language? No way... So now you are authority on linguistic semantics? Better catch those traitors then... > I do NOT use the vague definitions embraced by some members of this list > and a few professional philosophers who are more interested in words than > ideas. > Then why do you use words as a means of expressing ideas? Your implicit assumption that only your language use, concerning transcendental topics (of all things!), expresses "pure idea" rather than "word play" is not an argument. It is your usual bigotry as it is not congruent with any conception of "transcendental", including colloquial use of "God", which is much more varied than your philosophical cartoon of the holy trinity of "intelligent, conscious, and being." PGC > > You can make words mean anything you want, I could say "Maxwell's > Equations are a funny standup comedian", all I'd have to do is change the > meaning of "funny standup comedian", and it would require less dramatic > surgery to English than to calling some amorphous blob of nothing that > can't think or feel "God". > > John K Clark > > > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
