28 Aug '06 03:19>
Originally posted by orfeoYes, it is interesting, and I'm willing to go with either (a) or (b). I just thought it was silly to get hung up on these word games.
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).
If a god is a wonder bra, then yes, a god exists.
If a god is a toothbrush, then yes, a god exists.
If a god is a block of wood, then yes, a god exists.
If a god is a star, then yes, a god exists.
If a god is an omnipotent, omniscient, loving Creator who has made man to be the pinnacle of his creation and desires nothing more than to sit around for eternity in what must be unfathomably dull conversation with us and receive unending worship from us, then I really really really doubt a god exists.