|
Aurino,
Not only is God usually implied as a Creator of the material universe as well as teleological force in the world, but God is seen as conscious, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all-loving, etc. Each feature may or may not be associated or missing along the role as Creator.
I think the 'bigger picture' here is that words always have this kind of meaning. For example, the word 'love' has many kinds of meaning (e.g., "I love going to the movies", "I love my dog", "I love my kids", "I love my job", "I love her", etc). Each context is different and means something different - extraordinarily so. We don't always know from the context either. For example: "Do you think science will ever prove that love is not a purely selfish attribute?". We could ask what you mean by love, but I depending upon the depth of the question it may not be necessary. In fact, it might dilute the meaning of the question.
I still maintain that if can always focus on the exact meaning of a specific word and be 'right' in doing so for the mere fact that all words lack an exact meaning (e.g., try to define 'science' exactly).
Definitions are important, but their importance is when the topic (context) requires more exactness. You don't need a molecular definition of snow when asking if you want to go out and play in the snow. You know that, and I know that.
We differ here on a "cut-off" of this particular context. I'm not saying that it is in error to ask for a more exact definition, but I am saying that the question didn't justify it in this case. Although, as a sidenote, I did allude to the possibility that the definition of God that science accepts as being different than many popular views of God. That's my way of looking at the issue. I think we beat this subject enough already, but if you want to have the last word have at it.
Have a Good Easter! (and everyone on this forum too - including Mike P).
Warm regards, Harv |
