fr0d0 Wrote:He's the only way. The only correct one to be worshipped; but by no means the only one.
The first sentence contradicts the last, but I'll assume that's a typo.
You now need to define what you mean by "way" as there are multiple definitions of the word "way". If you mean a definition of "way" contrary to the existing definitions, you've now created a new definition which provides no new identifying characteristics. This makes the definition pointless. I believe this is what Scarlett was referring to:
Homosapiens have distinct, definable, identifiable properties. Homospaien is short-hand for these properties.
When one is asked what a man is, a person can say man is short-hand for homosapien (this is defined by its properties).
The word 'diety' has multiple meanings that vary widely to multiple people and has no clearly understood definition. Hence, it is not really short-hand for anything meaningful.
So, if when asked what God is, one says a diety, a person hasn't clarified the meaning at all.
... Also, do you mean that there are other correct "ways", but God is just the only "correct way" that is worshipped? This would mean if I began to worship another "correct way", God would no longer be the only worshipped one.
A concept needs to have all properties relevant to discussion produced before discussion can take place. God has multiple definitions, none of which are agreed upon. Like it or not, this means a person discussing God needs to first define the properties of the God they are talking about.
Simply saying things such as "the one I'm talking about", "the funny one", "the one named James", or "the really cool one my priest talks about" only provides the properties you say and therefore provides little useful meaning.
It would be similar to all elements being simply called "element". Before we can discuss the properties of the "big element" we are discussing, we need to know which element one we are each referring to.
