Rhizo:
Actually, from one perspective - that argument works. Because if by "prick" you just mean "prick" in the sense of the verb meaning 'to pierce or puncture', then if God is really just a prick in that sense - then he's merely a verb. And a verb that does exist. Now all that is being done then, is "God" is being used as a synonym for a mere verb. And a verb - isn't actually capable of creating a universe now is it? So if we accept that's all God is, is just a word - if we accept that as an axiom a tautology, true by definition - then he's not actually "God" as in the supernatural creator of the universe. So in the sense of a supernatural creator: God doesn't exist.
Of course in the above case though, in the sense of God simply being defined as the verb "prick", he would still exist; but I personally would see that as an unworthy definition and be strongly opposed to it, even if it was in the dictionary.
EvF
Actually, from one perspective - that argument works. Because if by "prick" you just mean "prick" in the sense of the verb meaning 'to pierce or puncture', then if God is really just a prick in that sense - then he's merely a verb. And a verb that does exist. Now all that is being done then, is "God" is being used as a synonym for a mere verb. And a verb - isn't actually capable of creating a universe now is it? So if we accept that's all God is, is just a word - if we accept that as an axiom a tautology, true by definition - then he's not actually "God" as in the supernatural creator of the universe. So in the sense of a supernatural creator: God doesn't exist.
Of course in the above case though, in the sense of God simply being defined as the verb "prick", he would still exist; but I personally would see that as an unworthy definition and be strongly opposed to it, even if it was in the dictionary.
EvF
