(October 8, 2018 at 2:02 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:(October 8, 2018 at 12:37 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Any member of a set of supernatural anthropomorphized entities alleged to have authority over some function of this world (real or imagined). I defined it this way in the thread that lead to this one, lol.
We could go with a literary def too. The focal point of divinity narratives.
We could go with a specific description of an individual god.
\Heres what the internet has to say
The thing that makes them gods is recognizability in the set, recognizability with respect to each other. We can even classify them into subsets. Check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_de...sification
All of that, is why ignosticism can't stand. It's only a sensible position the very -first- time you hear the term "gods". After that, you have an idea what folks are talking about..and if you want specifics you need only ask.
The fact that you can happen to find or make up definitions is totally irrelevant.
Beings are not defined into reality. Your definitions do not make beings a reality and are incoherent.
There are no "supernal" (anthropomorphized) anything. It's a mythological category, and there is no definition of that specifically involved here.
I could care less what Christianity (or any other religion) claims. Every single attribute they claim is easily refuted. Every one. It's why I have an advanced degree in the subject.
Knowing what people are talking about does not make anything a reality.
If people are talking about "Babe Ruth being a baseball immortal" .... does that in fact make him immortal ?
You can't possibly be serious.
You're also equivocating here, to the max.
The notion that when someone "talks about or references a god" is the SAME thing as actually trying to "define and claim a "real god" for themselves
are totally different concepts.
Saying that the named thing doesn't, or even cannot, exist is not the same as saying that there is no thusly named thing, real or imaginary. As previously pointed out, reference doesn't require coherence, even if it were apparent that the concept of god, or this or that concept of god, is incoherent. You've abandoned ignosticism in favor of a debate more favorable to you. That is nothing more than goalpost shifting.