Hello All, A little while back I attempted to explain my belief in a faceless, nameless highest power. This morning, I came across a variation of the following while surfing the net so I thought I'd pose the question to you: If we were all to agree that the word 'God' was a common noun and not a proper name, could we agree that 'God' means "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"...??? Hmmm.... Brian
Brian-- Yes, by proxy. It's a matter of convention. My own usual assertion is that God is "all there is in the Universe", or something to that effect. When people accept that definition, most of my philosophies start to make sense. And I generally like to think I'm capable of working with other definitions, too. As to the current definition you've proposed (Aquinas?)--that than which nothing greater can be conceived--that's one I'm familiar with and perfectly willing to employ in a thread. Given your proposal, I'm willing to say, "Sure." But I might advise it'll be a hard sell to maintain that standard within any given thread; we're not prone to staying within our boundaries here in that respect. As a poster, I can definitely keep this definition in mind when addressing your statements regarding God. A side effect of that might be a little bit of nitpicking from time to time. But I can, most definitely, for the purposes of any thread where such a definition is applied, work with the one you've proposed; it's a nice, neutral standard that doesn't eschew the sense of awesome divinity we've come to associate with God. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif">Judging from what I have seen, I would say that God is a verb. ------------------ It's all very large.
Tiassa and Brian: Yes, I am sure they do when that is your premise. It is known as pantheism, doctrine of the Far East. That is good, it shows an open mind. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually, no, that is the Ontological Argument for the existence of God first put forth by St. Anslem. Anselm's argument is like some of the proofs you probably did in geometry, in that it is an indirect proof. Instead of trying to prove God directly he tried to show that the supposition that God does not exist leads logically to a contradiction (reductio ad absurdum). The classic refutation is by Gaunilo who was a Benedictine monk in the 11th century. Carry on, Adlerian Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Alderian-- Thank you for the note on Anselm. It was 50-50, since I read them both in college. (Very stoned at the time though ... lesson on memory systems, if only I can remember ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
You are welcome. What courses of philosophy did you take in college? Yours, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Adlerian
tiassa, I did a little research: That "the word 'God' is a common noun and not a proper name" was a point put forth by Aquinas. "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" was put forth by Anslem. So, there was a valid reason for your 50-50 perception - it was right on! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tipping my hat to you. More tomorrow. Thanks, Brian
<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> Sure, Brian. If God is the creator of all things, and considering all of creation, I would say that God is forever on the move. The word describes action to me, judging from what I've seen of creation. ------------------ It's all very large.
