(November 17, 2016 at 7:57 am)robvalue Wrote: ... I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. Or why. [1] At first glance, it appears to be a way of protecting the concept of "God" at all costs by making the definition evidence of its own "existence"; although in what way it actually exists, or does anything at all, I have no idea. [2] I don't know why you even picked the word "God" and didn't make up a new term for it, as it seems to have nothing at all in common with anyone else trying to talk about God, or the entirety of the bible. [3]
It does go to show that the word means absolutely nothing out of context, doesn't it? [4]
1) Like Rhythm has said, I didn't come up with it. I am, however, trying to put it in terms that don't require a background in neo-platonic/aristotelian/thomistic philosophy. Apparently, I'm doing a poor job of it.
2) I can see how you'd think this given the context of our current discussion (which grants its existence for the sake of your question). The reasons leading to the conclusion that "it" exists at all begin from observed reality (which we have discussed in the past). You obviously find those reasons lacking validity, which is fine, but the "definition" derives from the reasons, not the other way around. At least I find that t o be the case.
3) Internet forum theists are not necessarily the best sample of all those trying to talk about god.
4) Well it certainly means the people have a wide-variety of using the term 'god'. Most theists would hold that some sort of a currently dependent relationship exists between existing things and what they call god.