(March 1, 2020 at 11:47 pm)Objectivist Wrote: There's more than just several

Thank you, I'm glad we agree about this. Rahn127 is incorrect.

Quote:In fact, each believer seems to have his own personal definition which vary quite a bit.

Is it true that "each believer" has his own definition? People who have studied the field tend to use one of the definitions that I've given, and people who haven't studied the field don't know about the field.

Quote:When it comes to concepts which identify actually existing concretes, we don't find this happening.  The definition of a rock, a tree, a bridge, a snow cone, or a Rhinoceros are pretty much universal.  But, we do find this variation in "definitions" of imaginary things.

Why would you talk about God as a "concrete"? There is no school of theology which speaks of God as tangible. He is said to be idea, or existence itself, or something like that -- certainly not one concrete object in the set of concrete objects. 

There are a number of things which surely exist for which there is no agreed-upon definition. Have you not read any Wittgenstein? "Art," "game," etc.

I can define a god as something that has no power, no awareness, no intelligence, no wisdom and no existence.

When people use the term god, are they referring to my definition or the one that they have in their own minds ?

When I say the word is meaningless, that is exactly what I mean.
There are no values that you can place upon the word because those values cannot be demonstrated.

It's like asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?"
How many imaginary items that have 0 mass can you put upon a finite space.
Answer - "An infinite number of nothing."

That is god. An infinite number of zeros that all add up to zero.
That is meaningless.

Behold god

(March 2, 2020 at 12:25 am)Rahn127 Wrote: I can define a god as something that has no power, no awareness, no intelligence, no wisdom and no existence.

When people use the term god, are they referring to my definition or the one that they have in their own minds ?

When I say the word is meaningless, that is exactly what I mean.
There are no values that you can place upon the word because those values cannot be demonstrated.

It's like asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?"
How many imaginary items that have 0 mass can you put upon a finite space.
Answer - "An infinite number of nothing."

That is god. An infinite number of zeros that all add up to zero.
That is meaningless.

But you see Belacqua like theists likes playing pointless games of make believe

(March 2, 2020 at 12:25 am)Rahn127 Wrote: When people use the term god, are they referring to my definition or the one that they have in their own minds ?

Probably they are referring to the idea of God that they have. 

When people use the term "game," are they referring to their own meaning, or mine? Definitions vary. Does this mean that "game" is meaningless?

Quote:When I say the word is meaningless, that is exactly what I mean.

But that's not what "meaningless" means. For a term to be meaningless, there has to be no meaning. For theists, it has a meaning. 

Quote:There are no values that you can place upon the word because those values cannot be demonstrated.

What do you mean by "values cannot be demonstrated"? Do you mean that the referent of the word has to be proven by science to have a meaning? That would be begging the question.

Quote:It's like asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?"
How many imaginary items that have 0 mass can you put upon a finite space.
Answer - "An infinite number of nothing."

The question about angels on the head of a pin was never used by any theologian. It was made up by people who wanted to tease theologians. 

It is true that some philosophers believe there can be things with no extension. Ideas, for example. 

Quote:That is god. An infinite number of zeros that all add up to zero.
That is meaningless.

Aristotle defines God as actus purus. The term actus purus has a meaning. Many Christians agree with the meaning. Therefore, the term God has a meaning.

Nope meaningless and of no value

No matter how much you try and make it seem like either

---

(March 2, 2020 at 12:25 am)Rahn127 Wrote: I can define a god as something that has no power, no awareness, no intelligence, no wisdom and no existence.

When people use the term god, are they referring to my definition or the one that they have in their own minds ?

When I say the word is meaningless, that is exactly what I mean.
There are no values that you can place upon the word because those values cannot be demonstrated.

It's like asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?"
How many imaginary items that have 0 mass can you put upon a finite space.
Answer - "An infinite number of nothing."

That is god. An infinite number of zeros that all add up to zero.
That is meaningless.

Get a load of his nutty response 

In his eternal quest to sound smart

Bel - you can't define something if you don't know what that something is.

People can make a claim that a god is actus purus but you can't define a god as actus purus unless you want to create a lie.

Until you can demonstrate a god, you cannot define it unless you wish to make up attributes that you believe it has.

In which case, making up attributes gets you no closer to defining a god.

All of the attributes of a god will remain at zero until demonstrated to be above zero.

(March 2, 2020 at 3:05 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Bel - you can't define something if you don't know what that something is.

I know what actus purus is. It has a clear definition. 

Quote:People can make a claim that a god is actus purus but you can't define a god as actus purus unless you want to create a lie.

You haven't demonstrated yet that actus purus is a lie. I don't know if there is such a thing or not, but that's not what we're talking about. 

We're talking about whether there is a definition for God. I have pointed to this one, many people in history have believed it. Arguing that there is no such thing would require a separate argument.

Quote:Until you can demonstrate a god, you cannot define it unless you wish to make up attributes that you believe it has.

The elaborate arguments for why actus purus is God, or God is actus purus, are available to you if you want to read them. 

I am not making up this attribute; many people have written logical arguments as to why there must be such a thing and why it would be God. 

Quote:In which case, making up attributes gets you no closer to defining a god. 

Again, I am not making up this attribute. In fact I think "attribute" wouldn't be the correct word for it. It is the definition that many people have for God. 

Quote:All of the attributes of a god will remain at zero until demonstrated to be above zero.

Please present your arguments as to why there is no such condition as actus purus and why all those who have believed in it are incorrect. The people whose work I have read have felt that they demonstrated it sufficiently. I am not enough of an expert to judge.

Actus purus us a pure act. Everything that exists is a pure act.

You need to demonstrate that a god exists before you can call it a pure act.

If I say a god is 5 feet tall, just because the measurement of 5 feet exists doesn't mean that a god has that quality.

The god must be shown to exist first before you can attach any attributes to it.

(March 2, 2020 at 3:14 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 3:05 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Bel - you can't define something if you don't know what that something is.

I know what actus purus is. It has a clear definition. 

Quote:People can make a claim that a god is actus purus but you can't define a god as actus purus unless you want to create a lie.

You haven't demonstrated yet that actus purus is a lie. I don't know if there is such a thing or not, but that's not what we're talking about. 

We're talking about whether there is a definition for God. I have pointed to this one, many people in history have believed it. Arguing that there is no such thing would require a separate argument.

Quote:Until you can demonstrate a god, you cannot define it unless you wish to make up attributes that you believe it has.

The elaborate arguments for why actus purus is God, or God is actus purus, are available to you if you want to read them. 

I am not making up this attribute; many people have written logical arguments as to why there must be such a thing and why it would be God. 

Quote:In which case, making up attributes gets you no closer to defining a god. 

Again, I am not making up this attribute. In fact I think "attribute" wouldn't be the correct word for it. It is the definition that many people have for God. 

Quote:All of the attributes of a god will remain at zero until demonstrated to be above zero.

Please present your arguments as to why there is no such condition as actus purus and why all those who have believed in it are incorrect. The people whose work I have read have felt that they demonstrated it sufficiently. I am not enough of an expert to judge.

Hi Bel!

So, could you unpack this 'actus purus ' for we dummies?

How does 'actus purus ' actually connect to a diety? Does the diety wear it as a hat?

Who's seen a diety with an 'actus purus'?

How often does the diety get their 'actus purus ' serviced? What sort of mileage does one of those things get, anyway?

People 'argue' for things all the time. How does one show it to be actually so?

If 'Logic', and the rules there of, are emergent properties of reality (And a side effect of our pattern generating systems) how can such apply to things like deities?

Cheers!

Not at work.