A Question From Atheists

[The Grand Nudger]

I think there is a misunderstanding. I did not say everything that is there in the dictionary truly exist and my argument does not depend on that. Proposition 0 simply states that we should not argue over the definitions that there are in the dictionary. But you are insisting that that definitions must be proven. 

Which is nothing more than insisting that we take no care to ensure that our propositions are sound.  That;s checking out of a rational conversation, not dialing in.

dragon |ˈdraɡən| noun1 a mythical monster like a giant reptile.

I understand your argument as insisting that we should justify and prove "dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile". We do not need to do that. We just pick up the definitions from the dictionary and we assume it to be true. we assume that it's true that "dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile." then we infer from the laws of logic that dragon does not exist.

Assuming that the definition is true does not yield the conclusion you're trying to arrive at....it doesn't even speak to it. But lets do that, let's assume it's true- that the definition of a god as "the universe" is something people believe in (and hey, why not, it is).  We can now infer from the laws of logic that a god proposed as stated by that definition is an equivocation.  Further by explaining that pantheists do actually seek to maintain that the universe is like a god and so can be justifiably called a god...and that those things which they believe...while they are their true beliefs, the only thing the definition is capable of attesting to...are not necessarily true of the universe ..we can show that this line of rationalization is fundamentally bankrupt.

You are not in a position, from this argument, to comment upon the rationality of anyone who disagrees with you or points out the many, many fatal logical flaws that you'd saddled pantheism with....for no reason other than to say "you believe in god too...it would be stupid to say you don't.

No, Nos, we really don't. We really don't believe in gods..no matter what -you- believe about gods..or universes.

Similarly, in the case of god, we pickup this definition "In some religions god is identical with the universe" we do not argue over it.

Some religions -believe- that god is identical to the universe....but you don;t believe in a god that;s identical to the universe.  You believe in a god that's universe +.  You believe in a universe that has the attributes of a god.... I don't.  

It does not need any justification

Yes, it does...and it's not as if those justifications don't exist.  I believe that they are poor justifications, but if you believe that they they are strong..then it would be rational, in a sense, for you to believe what you do...or at least a lot less than completely irrational.  

, just like how "dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile" does not need any justification.

OFC not, but justification is required to maintain that this definition accurately refers to anything beyond the concept to which it is applied.  To, for example, any existent mythical creature in the universe.  The same is true of a god..no matter what you decide to call it.  

We just pick up this definition and we say: "Well this is a rather unusual definition but certainly we cannot deny the existence of this sort of god"

I can and have denied the existence of such a god..repeatedly.  

we can further say "those people who believed universe is god where stupid!"

That would be flirting with an ad hom...why not say what I've explained to you, that the definition of a god as "the universe" on it's own is an equivocation, not a full description of their (or your) beliefs about why the universe is a god, and not accurate with respect to the universe in any objective or verifiable sense? Believing in "he universe" doesn't make -you- a pantheist, Nos..that took more.

ok you can say whatever you want.

Not in spinozas pantheism, I can't..lol.  I say whatever I'm determined to say.  

But the term "god" encompasses this "stupid" conceptions according to your dictionary. So when you are asserting "no god exists" you are also denying this sort of gods which is nonsensical. 

Many terms have encompassed stupid shit that doesn't exist.....dragons and gods being two examples.