manutter51@alethian.org wrote:

Equivocation can only occur when a word has more than one meaning.

You are mistaken; in this case you are being equivocal (misleading
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=equivocal )

manutter51@alethian.org wrote:

Atheistagnostic wrote:

manutter51@alethian.org wrote:

...I would have
thought the definition for "imaginary" was "that which exists only

in

the imagination," ...

"Exists in the imagination" is a contradiction in terms, old boy.
Nothing EXISTS in the imagination. That's equivocation on the term,
'exists' (where 'exists' means 'is real').

Equivocation can only occur when a word has more than one meaning.

You are mistaken;

manutter51@alethian.org wrote:

Atheistagnostic wrote:

"manutter51@alethian.org" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107557614.748704.182770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Fascinating, but what does that have to do with my question? I asked
simply what word would correspond to the definition "possessing all
possible power" or "possessing irresistable power."

That's not in any way a 'definition' of anything, it is merely what
would be called a hypothetical characteristic of a hypothetical entity,
nothing known to be real at all. (Unless of course you are prepared to
show us something like that today?)

I don't think the
word "imaginary" quite fits that description.

Isn't 'imaginary' the only term that fits it perfectly, old boy,

unless you

can point out anything like that in reality so that anybody can check

your

observations?

Oops, hit the wrong button. I was about to say that I would have
thought the definition for "imaginary" was "that which exists only in
the imagination," ...

"Exists in the imagination" is a contradiction in terms, old boy.
Nothing EXISTS in the imagination. That's equivocation on the term,
'exists' (where 'exists' means 'is real').

The imaginary is that which is not real. Can we say we agree on that?
But I am not asking about the definition of 'imaginary', the question I
am asking is the following:

Isn't 'imaginary' (that which is not real), or 'hypothetical' if you
prefer, the only term that fits your hypothetical thingy perfectly, old
boy, unless you can point out anything like that ('omnipotent', meaning
'all powerful') known to be real so that anybody can check your
observations?

"manutter51@alethian.org" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107546985.272238.182280@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Atheistagnostic wrote:

"manutter51@alethian.org" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107524041.246734.8860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Let's assume that your argument above is correct and that it is
impossible for any being to be omnipotent as omnipotence is defined
above. What word, then, would correspond to the definition

"possessing

all possible power" or "possessing irresistable power"?

The term you are looking for is 'imaginary'.

Hmm, ok, so then instead of saying "there is no such thing as a being
possessing all possible power," ...

Whoa, stop right there a minute, please. It's not the atheists making the
assertion

"manutter51@alethian.org" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107524041.246734.8860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

wcb wrote:

Can god make a rock that is so big, he cannot lift it?

If yes, he is not omnipotent, he cannot lift that rock.
If no, he cannot make that rock and again is not omnipotent.

The very concept of omnipotent is literally, in
its technical and exact meaning, incoherent.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what came before in the thread,
but it's also an interesting topic, so I'll respond :)

Let's assume that your argument above is correct and that it is
impossible for any being to be omnipotent as omnipotence is defined
above. What word, then, would correspond to the definition "possessing
all possible power" or "possessing irresistable power"?

The term you are looking for is 'imaginary'.

There certainly is, because God is not required to lie within that
concept or any other.

True, but if God lies outside that concept, then whatever that concept
is pointing to, it is not any God that actually exists,

But even supposing your assertion were true, and
the concept of God under consideration is the Christian one of an
omnipotent Universal Creator. How would you identify such a being if
he presented himself?

It's not a question of confirming identity, it's a question of knowing
He exists.

Even if the atheist could say, "I'm not sure You are who
You say You are," he would at least know he was talking to Someone who
actually existed.

Have him create another universe for you?
Would you know a second universe if you saw it?

I'm sure an omniscient and all-wise being could figure out *some* way
to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that He existed ;)

In the case where our concept of God points to something that we do
have real-world information about, there's no particular reason why it
must necessarily be impossible for the atheist to draw reasonable
conclusions about it. If by "God" we mean something that humans can't
possibly know about, then the believer cannot know what he is talking
about when he says "God" either. But if it is possible for the
believer to know anything about God,

By asserting that he *does* know about God, the believer is already
beginning to specify a particular impact that this God is having on the
real world. It's not mere speculation about the hypothetical
possibility of an impact. The believer, in assigning a well-defined
meaning to the concept of "God," is asserting an existing, specific,
humanly perceptible impact. It is therefore entirely reasonable to
investigate whether or not that specified impact actually exists in the
real world, in order to evaluate the claim that this particular God
actually exists.

Of course, it may still be possible to frame a concept of God in
such a
way as to defy any possibility of detecting His impact on the real
world. A completely self-concealing God would indeed be
unknowable--and inconceivable.

And so would a self-revealing God. A God with infinite powers, short
of making you omniscient, could not prove to you he is God.

So, for example, it is impossible for any non-omniscient human to know
Jesus is God?

Any human who claims to know that Jesus is God, is
necessarily speaking an untruth? ;)

The
inability is not his but ours. We are not competent judges of deity.

We don't need to be.

One does not need to be omniscient to know that
the earth, for example, actually exists.

Whether or not one knows that Jesus is God, one can
know, as well as one knows anything, that when you stand in front of
Jesus and speak with him face-to-face, he exists.

Human omniscience is
not required to know whether a self-revealing God exists.

To know if God exists, you must be able to identify him.
How do you do that?

I have in my hand a rock made of some kind of mineral I have never seen
or heard of before. Do I have to be able to identify the rock in order
to know that the rock in my hand exists?

Remember, we are considering here the alternative in which the concept
of "God" points to something humanly knowable and humanly known.

If it's humanly impossible to know what you are talking about
when you discuss the concept of God,

then yes, under those
circumstances it is impossible for the atheist (or the believer) to
know whether God exists or not.

But if it is humanly possible to
define what the term "God" means, then that definition is sufficient to
identify God well enough to determine whether or not He exists.

God would still
be having a discernable impact on the real world, through the medium of
the believers themselves. Thus, such a God is not necessarily
theoretically unknowable to the atheist.

He is quite unknowable. All such activity would prove would be the
presence of a powerful entity. A demiurge, a being from an advanced
civilization, the Universal Creator... who could tell?

At that point, however, it would no longer be a question of whether or
not such a being existed, it would be a question of the nature and
extent of the being's powers.

If you deny the deity of the Being who
was having an impact on His believers, then (a) you still acknowledge
that this being does exist, and (b) you are back to square one on the
question of whether or not some other "God" exists. If the concept of
"God" does not refer to this Being who is having a detectable impact on
His believers, then who or what does it refer to? If it refers to an
inherently unknowable entity, then by definition nobody who discusses
"God" can possibly know what he is talking about, but if this entity is
both knowable and *known*

(required in order for the believer to know
what he is talking about), then there's no particular reason why the
atheist cannot also know about Him.

By the way, if there's no real-world standard of reference for
determining what characteristics a deity is "supposed" to have, then
how do you know that the demiurge, advanced alien, or Universal Creator
is not, in fact, the Being that our concept of "God" is derived from?
If this Being is the Being whose impact on the real world is what we
refer to as the acts of God or the moving of the Spirit or what have
you, then on what basis would it be meaningful to deny that He was, in
fact, the real God?

Is there any obstacle I have not covered which would make it
impossible for the atheist to know whether or not God exists?

Sure. The inherent inability of an inferiour intelligence to judge

the

veracity of a sufficiently superiour one. On encountering any
superiour life form, you can't tell what you are confronting. And if
it really is superiour, it has plenty of capacity to delude you, like
an explorer wowing a Borneo tribesman with a radio and a camera.

But that's still a question of the *significance* and *implications* of
the existence of the explorer, not a question of whether or not the
explorer actually exists.

The fact that there is more to know about
God than just whether or not He exists, is not the same as saying you
cannot know He exists until you know all the other stuff first.