Free will and humans

[Kiekeben]

So your consistently sharp posts made me curious.  So I went back through other of your posts until I came to this one.  Which sent me searching for your book.  Being newish to the forums you are not allowed to link it directly yourself, but I am allowed to.  http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/book-...about-god/  Oh, this is a favorable review by the way, not a link to a book seller.

Now I haven't read it myself of course and I'm not sure I will.  But given the quality the posts you've made here so far I can see why people might enjoy it.  But there is something which gives me pause.

I worry about how you are defining "god" (or "God", which ever you use).  That has always been a stumbling block for my reading any of the new atheists .. and I haven't.  So I'm wondering if you've managed to define God in a way which Christians generally recognize as what they have in mind - while also defining it in a way which takes sufficient account of the pervasive existence of god belief across continents and millennia?  If "god" turns out to be literally the omni-everything cosmic watchmaker the Christians have in mind, then I think you will fail to ground the concept of "god" in any naturalistic way which can account for the pervasiveness of god belief.  Before I order my copy I need to know how you resolve that tension.  [Pro tip: declaring that god belief was just failed science from the days when we were stupider won't sell your book .. to me.]

Thanks for this, and for the reputation vote (or whatever it's called). I appreciate it.

TAYQs: First, in the book I use "God" when referring to a monotheistic deity, and lower case "god" when talking about polytheistic ones (which I discuss only briefly). 

Second, because I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible, I used what I consider the most general definition of God, IOW, the minimum that someone must believe in to qualify as a monotheist. And so I define God as a conscious being that is responsible for the existence of everything else - meaning that he either caused or sustains the existence of everything else (or both), and that he has ultimate responsibility (what that means is explained in the book). Anyone who doesn't believe in at least that isn't a real monotheist, IMO. 

I also cover more specific views - such as that of an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good God - as there are arguments that apply just to them. 

(As to polytheistic gods, they have to be defined differently, but nevertheless must also be thought of as ultimately responsible for what they do - because as I argue, that's an important part of the way the concept of a god functions.)

Lastly, because the book is a defense of positive atheism, that's how I use the term "atheism". (I'm mentioning this because I already received one complaint from a reader who thought that definition automatically disqualified my arguments, even though if he had just read a few pages further he would have seen that I'm aware of the  broader meaning.)