Posted by David Naughton on January 04, 1997 at 14:42:12:
In Reply to: Re: GOD...defined posted by grasshopper on January 04, 1997 at 09:32:29:
: :
: : : :
: : : : : I would be interested to hear how you all define the word god...?
: : : : When I refer to him - he is always a supernatural being. That's how it was defined in the beginning and that should be how it is defined today - all of these new definitions like the idea that man is god confuses the idea and is another example of our manipulation of language. The way that will end is having us all running around blabbing in our language - not understanding a thing another is saying until we've returned to the caveman type grunt. Hey, maybe it is all a cyclical process - perhaps we've reached the arch and are now headed back from whence we came. I best go buy up some mountain property.
: : : grunt...grunt...grunt...mmm...so god is any supernatural being (maybe there are many supernatural beings)?
: : Grasshopper buddy - you asked how I defined God not if I believed in him. I'm saying that all gods that have existed from the first ones in Summeria, Babylonia, Egypt right on down to Christianity and Islam - they have ALL been supernatural SO when I refer to them by saying something like "there is no damn evidence for God and the belief in him by far too much of the population is irrational and against reason" then it is the supernatural gods I am talking about - there is no other definiton of god as far as I'm concerned that doesn't include the supernatural. Get it?
: I know you don't believe in him, just discussing definitions. I don't
: really see proof for or against a god...maybe against certain gods (christian),
: but not against all possiblities.
If you don't see proof for a god, I don't think we need to worry about
proof against a god. But if you are saying that, while you don't see
proof for the existence of a god, you do see some evidence, what's the
evidence?