Debate God's Existence

Originally posted by KellyJay
So, having something defined as a god does not make it a god?
That then takes us back to what is a god, or what is God does it not?
Which was our origional question to begin with.
Kelly

I can point to my chair and say that it's a whale. Or hold up a pencil and say that it's an apple. But that doesn't make it so.

All you accomplish by saying that a piece of wood is god is to render the term 'god' meaningless and superfluous.

Originally posted by orfeo
True. With a big G and a little g.

Especially with a little g. Just about everybody worships something.

Fallacy of equivocation. Please go to the back of the line.

Originally posted by whodey
You are right in that the piece of wood is not a god in and of itself. However, it can become a god in the mind of a particular person. This perception then gives this lifeless piece of wood some power over us. In the minds of men, perception becomes reality.

The piece of wood has no power. All the power is in the mind of the beholder, even though he may not recognize it.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
ok, so a piece of wood is not a god just because thats what you call it, then what is a piece of wood? obviously its not a piece of wood just because thats what we call it.

you contradicted yourself.

Dear xians,

If we call a soda can a "rocket ship," we can fly to the moon.

When you say the word "god" do you honestly think "hmm . . . that could be a piece of wood"? Is, as orfeo implies, everything a god?

What is a god, and how does this Yahweh of the Hebrews that you worship fit the definition?

Originally posted by rwingett
wood = wood
god = god

Don't be an idiot.

God is just a woody?

Originally posted by rwingett
wood = wood
god = god

Don't be an idiot.

wood = god
your point?
Kelly

Originally posted by rwingett
I can point to my chair and say that it's a whale. Or hold up a pencil and say that it's an apple. But that doesn't make it so.

All you accomplish by saying that a piece of wood is god is to render the term 'god' meaningless and superfluous.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, isn't that the saying?
Your language is your language, and you may call a pencil an apple
and if everyone does too, it is an apple. It does not changes what
it is, only what we call it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, isn't that the saying?
Your language is your language, and you may call a pencil an apple
and if everyone does too, it is an apple. It does not changes what
it is, only what we call it.
Kelly

That is my point. If you call a block of wood god, it's still just a block of wood. You haven't changed it's substance by changing it's name. By pointing to a block of wood and saying 'god' over and over, all you do is make the word 'god' meaningless.

If we decide to call pencils apples, it doesn't change the function of the pencil/apple at all. It's still the same thing, but with a different name. What we properly understand to be 'wood' and what we understand to be 'god' are not the same thing. Swapping their names doesn't alter their substance.

Originally posted by KellyJay
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, isn't that the saying?
Your language is your language, and you may call a pencil an apple
and if everyone does too, it is an apple. It does not changes what
it is, only what we call it.
Kelly

Indeed, but I think we're sticking to the standard definitions of the English language which, whilst there is some wriggle room, I doubt calling a piece of wood god would fit any standard definition of either word.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
God exists...True, or false?

Clearly, you have an appetite for cheap entertainment.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Indeed, but I think we're sticking to the standard definitions of the English language which, whilst there is some wriggle room, I doubt calling a piece of wood god would fit any standard definition of either word.

As far as I'm concern it is a piece of wood too, but again some
people have called the sun a god, and so on. It isn't much
different that how many planets we have going around the
sun either. It is what people think, what is true does not depend
on what people claim or think. You can deny there is rain, that
doesn't mean that rain isn't real.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As far as I'm concern it is a piece of wood too, but again some
people have called the sun a god, and so on. It isn't much
different that how many planets we have going around the
sun either. It is what people think, what is true does not depend
on what people claim or think. You can deny there is rain, that
doesn't mean that rain isn't real.
Kelly

The sun is more imposing than a block of wood by a wide margin. Plus it is kind of necessary for life and everything. Not too difficult to see why a pre-scientific culture might try to deify it. A block of wood, on the other hand, is just a block of wood. Especially these days when we have all the marvels of modern science at our disposal.

Originally posted by telerion
Dear xians,

If we call a soda can a "rocket ship," we can fly to the moon.

When you say the word "god" do you honestly think "hmm . . . that could be a piece of wood"? Is, as orfeo implies, everything a god?

What is a god, and how does this Yahweh of the Hebrews that you worship fit the definition?

Really this debate is stuck on (a) whether you require something to have ACTUAL power in order to be defined as a 'god', or (b) whether it simply has to be something that is ASCRIBED power by those who worship it.

I went with (b). Rwingett clearly wants to use (a). The debate isn't going to get very far unless we resolve this preliminary issue.

It's interesting, though, that it's the atheists who seem most keen on using (a).

Originally posted by orfeo
Really this debate is stuck on (a) whether you require something to have ACTUAL power in order to be defined as a 'god', or (b) whether it simply has to be something that is ASCRIBED power by those who worship it.

I went with (b). Rwingett clearly wants to use (a). The debate isn't going to get very far unless we resolve this preliminary issue.

It's interesting, though, that it's the atheists who seem most keen on using (a).

Standard English definition. You theists seem to be stuck on that one. Permanently.

Originally posted by orfeo
Really this debate is stuck on (a) whether you require something to have ACTUAL power in order to be defined as a 'god', or (b) whether it simply has to be something that is ASCRIBED power by those who worship it.

I went with (b). Rwingett clearly wants to use (a). The debate isn't going to get very far unless we resolve this preliminary issue.

It's interesting, though, that it's the atheists who seem most keen on using (a).

god: 1: the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness whom men worship as creator and ruler of the universe b: Christian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit: infinite Mind 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require man's worship; specif: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3: a person or hing of supreme value 4: a powerful ruler.

Something like a sun could be deified. Incorrectly of course, but still deified. Something that has an enormous impact on the lives of mankind. To say a simple block of wood is a god is to trivialize the term to the point of uselessness. Now, you could say the block of wood was inhabited by a god, but that's something completely different.