Paul,

Why stop at defining God? Why not define words like 'exist', 'prove', 'definition', etc. At some point in our effort to define words we totally lose the central meaning of a question which I think is rather obvious. By over defining ourselves we make a simple question require all of us to have a Ph.D. in semantics, linguistics, and etymology.

I think the word 'prove' is the most controversial since most people vary more on their understanding of that term than on the existence (ontology) of God (intelligent-like spiritual existence that created the material universe and pervades the universe). I guess my point is that we can always push for definitions until we are blue in the face, but let's don't look away from what we generally mean by God.

For example, I think it was Steven Weinberg who said that he had no idea what the term 'spiritual' meant. That strikes me as nothing short of obtuse. Sometimes we should just let our yea be yea and our nay be nay.

Warm regards, Harv

• It is a method...play dumb & have the 'prideful' explain to you - something - March 29, 2002 - 07:54 UTC
  • Does anyone hear that screeching noise? (nt) - harvey1 - March 29, 2002 - 13:15 UTC
    • No, but they're working on the road outside our home - carefuluniverse - March 29, 2002 - 18:55 UTC
• Here's why - aurino - March 29, 2002 - 16:35 UTC
  • On a second thought - aurino - March 29, 2002 - 16:46 UTC
  • You have a point - harvey1 - March 29, 2002 - 17:07 UTC
    • A two-edged problem - aurino - March 29, 2002 - 17:39 UTC
      • When is it not personal, Aurino? - carefuluniverse - March 29, 2002 - 18:52 UTC
        • the link needs a dot -- I wrote it oops - carefuluniverse - March 29, 2002 - 18:53 UTC
        • You're trying to find a contradiction when there is none - harvey1 - March 29, 2002 - 19:05 UTC
          • Can't 'proceed' to be coherent if you won't do the work - something - March 30, 2002 - 01:52 UTC
            • Then why not go to AA and get sober? (nt) - harvey1 - March 30, 2002 - 14:36 UTC
              • I guess you skipped right to the last paragraph - spazcon - March 30, 2002 - 18:59 UTC
        • It's as personal as you want to make it - aurino - April 1, 2002 - 13:55 UTC
          • along with the will o the wisp and other phantasms? - spazcon - April 2, 2002 - 03:07 UTC
          • about that citation - spazcon - April 2, 2002 - 05:39 UTC
            • And your point is? (nt) - harvey1 - April 2, 2002 - 05:58 UTC
            • You are mistaken, Mike - aurino - April 2, 2002 - 15:05 UTC
              • you didn't show evidence for that, Aurino - spazcon - April 2, 2002 - 15:23 UTC
                • A meaningless but stable number - spazcon - April 2, 2002 - 22:17 UTC
              • Thanks, Aurino - harvey1 - April 2, 2002 - 16:01 UTC
      • Well, we can add more - harvey1 - March 29, 2002 - 19:21 UTC
        • Meet TUM - a very nice guy - aurino - April 1, 2002 - 14:42 UTC
          • You're not wrong - harvey1 - April 1, 2002 - 15:18 UTC
            • The poet and the scientist - aurino - April 1, 2002 - 15:39 UTC
• We disagree, Harv. I think it is absolutely necessary. - pmartin - March 29, 2002 - 20:36 UTC
  • Disagreement is good - harvey1 - March 29, 2002 - 21:33 UTC
    • You're right. - pmartin - March 30, 2002 - 00:19 UTC
      • I don't think it is a true or false issue (nt) - harvey1 - March 30, 2002 - 00:57 UTC
        • Me neither; I didn't mention either of those two words (nt) - pmartin - March 30, 2002 - 03:26 UTC