| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Cerberus" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2003 01:39:45 PM |
| Object: |
God definition |
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT/CS/E/M/P/S/O d-- s-:- a---? C++++ ULBS U+++(U) P+++>+++++
L++>+++++(++++) E(+)>++ W+++>$ N++ o+ k !w--- O- M- V-- PS++ PE Y++@ PGP+@
t+ 5(+) X++ R@ tv+@ b++++ DI+++(++++) D+@ G++(+++) e->+++++$ h>+@ r(++)
y->+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
28 Aug 2003 10:38:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 06:42:45 -0700, "metahuman" <@metavirus.net>
wrote:
The same definition applies. The difference is that Greek gods do not have ALL of the traits that
the Christian God has. hehe
God is similar to the pagan gods in many respects.
God is a bit like all of them roled into one "Super" god.
Still - my point was that God is just one particular god - not the
entire subject.
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
27 Aug 2003 10:46:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 +0000, Cerberus wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
My money is on "no, they can't."
(But they'll believe anyway)
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
27 Aug 2003 01:56:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cerberus" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
27 Aug 2003 02:33:16 PM |
|
|
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT/CS/E/M/P/S/O d-- s-:- a---? C++++ ULBS U+++(U) P+++>+++++
L++>+++++(++++) E(+)>++ W+++>$ N++ o+ k !w--- O- M- V-- PS++ PE Y++@ PGP+@
t+ 5(+) X++ R@ tv+@ b++++ DI+++(++++) D+@ G++(+++) e->+++++$ h>+@ r(++)
y->+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
.
|
|
|
| User: "sdq" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
27 Aug 2003 02:54:02 PM |
|
|
Cerberus wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
....god is the french word for *****.
sdq
.
|
|
|
| User: "ImpBush" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
27 Aug 2003 03:14:49 PM |
|
|
"sdq" <sdq@sdq.com> wrote in message
news:bij2a3$1a2$1@Tropolix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA...
Cerberus wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
...god is the french word for *****.
That explains why so many c*nts believe in god!
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
31 Aug 2003 09:07:41 AM |
|
|
"ImpBush" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Zi83b.45214$0u4.16040@news1.central.cox.net>...
"sdq" <sdq@sdq.com> wrote in message
news:bij2a3$1a2$1@Tropolix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA...
Cerberus wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
...god is the french word for *****.
That explains why so many c*nts believe in god!
And so many @ssholes, too. 8)
.
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
31 Aug 2003 11:23:56 AM |
|
|
On 31 Aug 2003 07:07:41 -0700, George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
"ImpBush" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Zi83b.45214$0u4.16040@news1.central.cox.net>...
"sdq" <sdq@sdq.com> wrote in message
news:bij2a3$1a2$1@Tropolix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA...
Cerberus wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
...god is the french word for *****.
That explains why so many c*nts believe in god!
And so many @ssholes, too. 8)
Wh@t !s th# *****!ng pr*bl#m p#*pl# h@v# w!th c#rt@!n w*rds @nd wh#r# d!d th#
!d#@ th@t subst!tut!ng th# v*w#ls w!th sp#c!@l symb*ls n#g@t#d th# p*ss!b!l!ty
*f s*m# stup!d sh!th#@d c*cksuck#r t@k!ng *ff#ns#?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
01 Sep 2003 08:21:24 AM |
|
|
TCS <The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message news:<slrnbl488r.4jm.The.Central.Scrutinizer@linux.adamf625.kaosol.net>...
On 31 Aug 2003 07:07:41 -0700, George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
"ImpBush" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Zi83b.45214$0u4.16040@news1.central.cox.net>...
"sdq" <sdq@sdq.com> wrote in message
news:bij2a3$1a2$1@Tropolix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA...
Cerberus wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
...god is the french word for *****.
That explains why so many c*nts believe in god!
And so many @ssholes, too. 8)
Wh@t !s th# *****!ng pr*bl#m p#*pl# h@v# w!th c#rt@!n w*rds @nd wh#r# d!d th#
!d#@ th@t subst!tut!ng th# v*w#ls w!th sp#c!@l symb*ls n#g@t#d th# p*ss!b!l!ty
*f s*m# stup!d sh!th#@d c*cksuck#r t@k!ng *ff#ns#?
In my case, I replied to the earlier poster using his own convention.
I don't worry about the possibility of some stupid ***** *****
taking offense - IME, there'll usually be at least one no matter what
I write.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
28 Aug 2003 10:05:00 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:14:49 GMT, "ImpBush" <nospam@nospam.com>
ejaculated:
"sdq" <sdq@sdq.com> wrote in message
news:bij2a3$1a2$1@Tropolix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA...
Cerberus wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
...god is the french word for *****.
That explains why so many c*nts believe in god!
Dude, this isn't ABC Must-see Friday. It's Usenet. You don't need to
bleep yourself.
--
<URL:http://www20.brinkster.com/beowulf9/gottod/JesusHatesTheLittleChildren.html>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
27 Aug 2003 02:43:54 PM |
|
|
Cerberus wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
My definition is "that which is not there"....or perhaps "other peoples'
imaginary friend".
The problem, you see, is that it's not easy (it may be impossible) to
define something which is a fantasy, which does not really exist.
You might get somewhere with the usual "omnipotent, invisible,
omniscient 'being'" definition. Perhaps add some stuff about "divine
revelation", "knows and cares about individual people", and such. But
when you get specific at all, you will find that your definition does
not work for some peoples' gods, so you get back to the first reply
above, which demands that you specify which god it is you want us to
define.
IOW, you're asking for something that you ain't gonna get.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
27 Aug 2003 07:03:07 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:_R73b.5893$3E.1636@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Cerberus wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
My definition is "that which is not there"....or perhaps "other peoples'
imaginary friend".
The problem, you see, is that it's not easy (it may be impossible) to
define something which is a fantasy, which does not really exist.
You might get somewhere with the usual "omnipotent, invisible,
omniscient 'being'" definition. Perhaps add some stuff about "divine
revelation", "knows and cares about individual people", and such. But
when you get specific at all, you will find that your definition does
not work for some peoples' gods, so you get back to the first reply
above, which demands that you specify which god it is you want us to
define.
IOW, you're asking for something that you ain't gonna get.
Well, not exactly. Some islander could point to a carved rock and say
"That's our god."
I'm uncertain what to do at that point because the rock certainly exists,
but the supernatural powers that the islander now explains the rock has are
quite unbelievable. So what do I say? Do I say that I believe the god
exists, but it can't do what the islander says it does?
Or you could say "that's a rock, not a god".
But yeah, that's another problem with trying to define "god". Perhaps
the definition might include something to the effect that "god is
whatever the believer says it is". I don't know.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Faircloth" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
04 Sep 2003 07:10:26 PM |
|
|
J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Cerberus wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
My definition is "that which is not there"....or perhaps "other peoples'
imaginary friend".
The problem, you see, is that it's not easy (it may be impossible) to
define something which is a fantasy, which does not really exist.
You might get somewhere with the usual "omnipotent, invisible,
omniscient 'being'" definition. Perhaps add some stuff about "divine
revelation", "knows and cares about individual people", and such. But
when you get specific at all, you will find that your definition does
not work for some peoples' gods, so you get back to the first reply
above, which demands that you specify which god it is you want us to
define.
IOW, you're asking for something that you ain't gonna get.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
I just gave it him....nyaaa!
title: God http://members.tripod.com/~foldey0/duplindex.html
----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cerberus" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
27 Aug 2003 06:59:58 PM |
|
|
J Forbes wrote:
Cerberus wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
My definition is "that which is not there"....or perhaps "other peoples'
imaginary friend".
The problem, you see, is that it's not easy (it may be impossible) to
define something which is a fantasy, which does not really exist.
You might get somewhere with the usual "omnipotent, invisible,
omniscient 'being'" definition. Perhaps add some stuff about "divine
revelation", "knows and cares about individual people", and such. But
when you get specific at all, you will find that your definition does
not work for some peoples' gods, so you get back to the first reply
above, which demands that you specify which god it is you want us to
define.
IOW, you're asking for something that you ain't gonna get.
I meant, what are the properties that all gods share? My question was
similar to asking "What is a painting?" You wouldn't have to know which
painting I mean, you could simply list the properties of paintings.
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT/CS/E/M/P/S/O d-- s-:- a---? C++++ ULBS U+++(U) P+++>+++++
L++>+++++(++++) E(+)>++ W+++>$ N++ o+ k !w--- O- M- V-- PS++ PE Y++@ PGP+@
t+ 5(+) X++ R@ tv+@ b++++ DI+++(++++) D+@ G++(+++) e->+++++$ h>+@ r(++)
y->+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
31 Aug 2003 11:50:04 AM |
|
|
"Cerberus" <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote in message
news:2Cb3b.100254$Ij4.91948@news2.central.cox.net...
J Forbes wrote:
Cerberus wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
My definition is "that which is not there"....or perhaps "other peoples'
imaginary friend".
The problem, you see, is that it's not easy (it may be impossible) to
define something which is a fantasy, which does not really exist.
You might get somewhere with the usual "omnipotent, invisible,
omniscient 'being'" definition. Perhaps add some stuff about "divine
revelation", "knows and cares about individual people", and such. But
when you get specific at all, you will find that your definition does
not work for some peoples' gods, so you get back to the first reply
above, which demands that you specify which god it is you want us to
define.
IOW, you're asking for something that you ain't gonna get.
I meant, what are the properties that all gods share? My question was
similar to asking "What is a painting?" You wouldn't have to know which
painting I mean, you could simply list the properties of paintings.
Paintings are known to exist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
27 Aug 2003 07:09:55 PM |
|
|
Cerberus wrote:
J Forbes wrote:
IOW, you're asking for something that you ain't gonna get.
I meant, what are the properties that all gods share? My question was
similar to asking "What is a painting?" You wouldn't have to know which
painting I mean, you could simply list the properties of paintings.
the painting is a real object that we can both look at, and agree that
it's a painting, and even what makes it a painting, as opposed to a
piece of canvas, a wall, an apple, or something else. The god is an
imaginary construct, so it is different in the imagination of each
person who has such a belief.
But as others mentioned, some folks claim that a rock is a god, others
that the wind is a god (spirit), others that *they* are god, etc. So,
you just can't really say what's a god, and what's not a god! The bible
type of god is only one example, and even that one has many different
properties, depending on who you ask (or where in the book you read).
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Crisp" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
27 Aug 2003 09:54:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 9:59:58 +1000, Cerberus wrote
(in message <2Cb3b.100254$Ij4.91948@news2.central.cox.net>):
I meant, what are the properties that all gods share?
Someone, somewhere, thinks the thing/conception they regard as a
god is a god. That is the _only_ thing shared by the Sun, Venus,
various Caesars, Japanese Emperors, and the usual run-of-the-mill
sky-pixies.
My question was similar to asking "What is a painting?" You
wouldn't have to know which painting I mean, you could simply
list the properties of paintings.
Hmm. I actually see similar problems with 'what is a painting?' as
I do with 'what is a god?'.
If I use food colouring or bolognese sause instead of
acrylic/oil/watercolour is it 'paint'? What if I make a woodcut,
smear it with blueberry jam, and then make impressions from that
'stamp'? How about if I just spill paint on the floor? What if I
instead suspend leaky buckets of paint over a canvas and let
gravity do the work?
Have Fun
Martin,killed by an arch-lich called Cerberus
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carmen Dioxide" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
01 Sep 2003 06:19:59 PM |
|
|
Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote > If I use food
colouring or bolognese sause instead of
acrylic/oil/watercolour is it 'paint'? What if I make a woodcut,
smear it with blueberry jam, and then make impressions from that
'stamp'? How about if I just spill paint on the floor? What if I
instead suspend leaky buckets of paint over a canvas and let
gravity do the work?
Like none of those mediums have been explored? I bet all of them have
been.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Crisp" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
01 Sep 2003 09:52:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 9:19:59 +1000, Carmen Dioxide wrote
(in message <b46d2b8e.0309011519.26318f75@posting.google.com>):
Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote > If I use food
colouring or bolognese sause instead of
acrylic/oil/watercolour is it 'paint'? What if I make a woodcut,
smear it with blueberry jam, and then make impressions from that
'stamp'? How about if I just spill paint on the floor? What if I
instead suspend leaky buckets of paint over a canvas and let
gravity do the work?
Like none of those mediums have been explored? I bet all of them have
been.
I wasn't suggesting they hadn't been, though I'm not sure about the
blueberry jam on a woodcut. Pro Hart (Australian Artist) used
bolognese sauce (and many other things) to do a 'painting' on
carpet for a TV ad. I've spilled paint on the floor. Jackson
Pollock used suspended buckets of paint for Blue Poles.
My comments were simply an attempt to show that "What is a
painting?" is as difficult to pin down as "what are the properties
that all gods share?"
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
03 Sep 2003 09:46:06 AM |
|
|
Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message news:<0001HW.BB7A43210238C5F3F0407600@news.ozemail.com.au>...
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 9:19:59 +1000, Carmen Dioxide wrote
(in message <b46d2b8e.0309011519.26318f75@posting.google.com>):
Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote > If I use food
colouring or bolognese sause instead of
acrylic/oil/watercolour is it 'paint'? What if I make a woodcut,
smear it with blueberry jam, and then make impressions from that
'stamp'? How about if I just spill paint on the floor? What if I
instead suspend leaky buckets of paint over a canvas and let
gravity do the work?
Like none of those mediums have been explored? I bet all of them have
been.
I wasn't suggesting they hadn't been, though I'm not sure about the
blueberry jam on a woodcut. Pro Hart (Australian Artist) used
bolognese sauce (and many other things) to do a 'painting' on
carpet for a TV ad. I've spilled paint on the floor. Jackson
Pollock used suspended buckets of paint for Blue Poles.
My comments were simply an attempt to show that "What is a
painting?" is as difficult to pin down as "what are the properties
that all gods share?"
Have Fun
Martin
You've shown that, with every definition, there will be borderline
cases. Equally, though, there are paradigm cases, such as some things
clearly are paintings and some are not - Eg, Harris's "North of
Superior" is a painting by any of these definitions, and the spoon in
my coffee cup is not - and by which, the statement "X is a painting"
is true in some cases and false in some.
What you have not shown is that a subjective definition - "A painting
is anything that anyone believes to be a painting" - is a reasonable
default. The effect of that definition would be to make "X is a
painting" a valid statement, true in every case - IOW, everything
would be a painting - since, as soon as one person considered it a
painting, it would be painting in fact, and everyone who denied that
it was a painting would be wrong. Agreed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Crisp" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
04 Sep 2003 09:50:07 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 0:46:06 +1000, George Dance wrote
(in message <6312c50b.0309030646.77390155@posting.google.com>):
Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:<0001HW.BB7A43210238C5F3F0407600@news.ozemail.com.au>...
[...]
My comments were simply an attempt to show that "What is a
painting?" is as difficult to pin down as "what are the properties
that all gods share?"
Have Fun
Martin
You've shown that, with every definition, there will be borderline
cases. Equally, though, there are paradigm cases, such as some things
clearly are paintings and some are not - Eg, Harris's "North of
Superior" is a painting by any of these definitions, and the spoon in
my coffee cup is not - and by which, the statement "X is a painting"
is true in some cases and false in some.
Other than some quibbles [and serious definition stretching], yes
I'd say that's the case for paintings, and most things we can
[potentially] demonstrate to one another.
What you have not shown is that a subjective definition - "A painting
is anything that anyone believes to be a painting" - is a reasonable
default. The effect of that definition would be to make "X is a
painting" a valid statement, true in every case - IOW, everything
would be a painting - since, as soon as one person considered it a
painting, it would be painting in fact, and everyone who denied that
it was a painting would be wrong. Agreed?
Agreed.
Have Fun
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "J. Colombo" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
04 Sep 2003 11:46:33 AM |
|
|
God is defined as an OOG being, that is it is Omniscient, Omnipotent,
and fully Good.
Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message news:<0001HW.BB7D8E3F02FE6111F0284600@news.ozemail.com.au>...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 0:46:06 +1000, George Dance wrote
(in message <6312c50b.0309030646.77390155@posting.google.com>):
Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:<0001HW.BB7A43210238C5F3F0407600@news.ozemail.com.au>...
[...]
My comments were simply an attempt to show that "What is a
painting?" is as difficult to pin down as "what are the properties
that all gods share?"
Have Fun
Martin
You've shown that, with every definition, there will be borderline
cases. Equally, though, there are paradigm cases, such as some things
clearly are paintings and some are not - Eg, Harris's "North of
Superior" is a painting by any of these definitions, and the spoon in
my coffee cup is not - and by which, the statement "X is a painting"
is true in some cases and false in some.
Other than some quibbles [and serious definition stretching], yes
I'd say that's the case for paintings, and most things we can
[potentially] demonstrate to one another.
What you have not shown is that a subjective definition - "A painting
is anything that anyone believes to be a painting" - is a reasonable
default. The effect of that definition would be to make "X is a
painting" a valid statement, true in every case - IOW, everything
would be a painting - since, as soon as one person considered it a
painting, it would be painting in fact, and everyone who denied that
it was a painting would be wrong. Agreed?
Agreed.
Have Fun
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
04 Sep 2003 02:47:31 PM |
|
|
On 4 Sep 2003 09:46:33 -0700, (J. Colombo)
ejaculated:
<top posting fixed>
Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message news:<0001HW.BB7D8E3F02FE6111F0284600@news.ozemail.com.au>...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 0:46:06 +1000, George Dance wrote
(in message <6312c50b.0309030646.77390155@posting.google.com>):
Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:<0001HW.BB7A43210238C5F3F0407600@news.ozemail.com.au>...
[...]
My comments were simply an attempt to show that "What is a
painting?" is as difficult to pin down as "what are the properties
that all gods share?"
Have Fun
Martin
You've shown that, with every definition, there will be borderline
cases. Equally, though, there are paradigm cases, such as some things
clearly are paintings and some are not - Eg, Harris's "North of
Superior" is a painting by any of these definitions, and the spoon in
my coffee cup is not - and by which, the statement "X is a painting"
is true in some cases and false in some.
Other than some quibbles [and serious definition stretching], yes
I'd say that's the case for paintings, and most things we can
[potentially] demonstrate to one another.
<snip>
God is defined as an OOG being, that is it is Omniscient, Omnipotent,
and fully Good.
Some gods are defined thusly, but not all. You're arbitrarily picking
a particular god and claiming that the attributes of that god are
shared by all gods. This is most assuredly not the case.
Even within one particular theological system (Christian thought) you
can't get agreement on such basic questions as whether the god in
question has 1 person or 3 crammed inside it.
There are a number of conclusions one can draw from this, but they're
tangential to the main question, which is the attributes shared by all
gods posited by humanity to date. I'd be hard pressed to come up with
even one attribute that applies across the board to the Asatru,
Buddhist, Christian, Deist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Pantheist, Wiccan
and Zoroastrian gods other than the fact that they don't exist
outside the person's imagination. Of course, nature worshippers that
claim the sun is a god violate this rule in its strictest sense. But
the nature worshipper's concept 'sun' probably contains bits that
don't apply to the actual "sun" that exists in reality.
--
Diesels do it by squeezing real hard.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Crisp" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
04 Sep 2003 08:35:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 2:46:33 +1000, J. Colombo wrote
(in message <8e295921.0309040846.2cbc7ce0@posting.google.com>):
[top post moved]
Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:<0001HW.BB7D8E3F02FE6111F0284600@news.ozemail.com.au>...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 0:46:06 +1000, George Dance wrote
(in message <6312c50b.0309030646.77390155@posting.google.com>):
Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:<0001HW.BB7A43210238C5F3F0407600@news.ozemail.com.au>...
[...]
My comments were simply an attempt to show that "What is a
painting?" is as difficult to pin down as "what are the properties
that all gods share?"
[snip because this seems the most context-relevant place for your
comment]
God is defined as an OOG being, that is it is Omniscient, Omnipotent,
and fully Good.
Really? I wasn't talking about _your_ 'God', but any 'god'. As far
as I'm aware Thor was not reputed to be fully good, or omniscient
(where is that rock?), or omnipotent. Volcano gods, likewise were
certainly not viewed as fully good. Venus was seen as having
influence only in particular spheres. And so on.
Also, even if we restrict ourselves to the Christian God your
summary does not universally describe this 'same' god you all
worship. [e.g. As a Catholic I was taught the three primary
properties of God were that He was: Eternal, Omniscient,
Omnipotent; no mention of benevolence.]
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
29 Aug 2003 01:01:36 PM |
|
|
TCS wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:54:30 +1000, Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 9:59:58 +1000, Cerberus wrote
I meant, what are the properties that all gods share?
My question was similar to asking "What is a painting?" You
wouldn't have to know which painting I mean, you could simply
list the properties of paintings.
Hmm. I actually see similar problems with 'what is a painting?' as
I do with 'what is a god?'.
If I use food colouring or bolognese sause instead of
acrylic/oil/watercolour is it 'paint'? What if I make a woodcut,
A painting is a two dimensional image made with pigments. It can have
three dimensional attributes, but that isn't a requirement.
That definition is problematic. It's too broad, because it includes
many things which are not paintings (photographs, for instance.) It's
too narrow, because it excludes things which ARE paintings (say, a
painting made without true pigments -- a black canvas).
If we try to use the definition to determine if a specific object is a
painting, we might find that the definition is too vague. Go to this
link:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/fathom-five/pollock.fathom-five.jpg
Is that a painting? One problem that we encounter with the definition
is the word "pigment". Do the colored lights projected from your
computer monitor qualify as pigments? If so, then this might be a
painting (even though most people would agree that, at best, it is a
REPRODUCTION of a painting, and not a painting itself. Displaying an
actual painting on a computer monitor would render the monitor pretty
useless).
Let's ignore that issue though, and pretend that we are talking about
the original work that is represented by that web graphic. Is it an
image? A stricter definition of "image" would say no, since is it not
likeness of anything. A broader defintion could include the work, but
it's difficult to imagine just what that definition of "image" would
look like.
These types of difficulties mirror the problems we counld encounter in
trying to define the word "god". Our definition will be simultaneously
too vague, too narrow, and too broad.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
29 Aug 2003 01:52:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:01:36 -0400, Marc Fleury <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:54:30 +1000, Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 9:59:58 +1000, Cerberus wrote
I meant, what are the properties that all gods share?
My question was similar to asking "What is a painting?" You
wouldn't have to know which painting I mean, you could simply
list the properties of paintings.
Hmm. I actually see similar problems with 'what is a painting?' as
I do with 'what is a god?'.
If I use food colouring or bolognese sause instead of
acrylic/oil/watercolour is it 'paint'? What if I make a woodcut,
A painting is a two dimensional image made with pigments. It can have
three dimensional attributes, but that isn't a requirement.
That definition is problematic. It's too broad, because it includes
many things which are not paintings (photographs, for instance.) It's
too narrow, because it excludes things which ARE paintings (say, a
painting made without true pigments -- a black canvas).
....
AFAIK, a photograph is a painting, one produced via automation. :P
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Crisp" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
29 Aug 2003 08:57:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 4:52:07 +1000, TCS wrote
(in message
<slrnbkv86m.2jea.The.Central.Scrutinizer@turing.kaosol.net>):
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:01:36 -0400, Marc Fleury <marcfleury@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:54:30 +1000, Martin Crisp
<Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 9:59:58 +1000, Cerberus wrote
I meant, what are the properties that all gods share?
My question was similar to asking "What is a painting?" You
wouldn't have to know which painting I mean, you could simply
list the properties of paintings.
Hmm. I actually see similar problems with 'what is a painting?' as
I do with 'what is a god?'.
If I use food colouring or bolognese sause instead of
acrylic/oil/watercolour is it 'paint'? What if I make a woodcut,
A painting is a two dimensional image made with pigments. It can have
three dimensional attributes, but that isn't a requirement.
That definition is problematic. It's too broad, because it includes
many things which are not paintings (photographs, for instance.) It's
too narrow, because it excludes things which ARE paintings (say, a
painting made without true pigments -- a black canvas).
...
AFAIK, a photograph is a painting, one produced via automation. :P
Is a bit pattern stored on a memory card (in my digital camera) a
painting? Is a bit pattern (a Photoshop document) on my hard drive
a painting?
Is the chemical imprint on a roll of film, prior to beng developed,
a painting?
Is everything I see a painting?
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
29 Aug 2003 10:09:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:57:34 +1000, Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 4:52:07 +1000, TCS wrote
(in message
<slrnbkv86m.2jea.The.Central.Scrutinizer@turing.kaosol.net>):
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:01:36 -0400, Marc Fleury <marcfleury@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:54:30 +1000, Martin Crisp
<Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 9:59:58 +1000, Cerberus wrote
I meant, what are the properties that all gods share?
My question was similar to asking "What is a painting?" You
wouldn't have to know which painting I mean, you could simply
list the properties of paintings.
Hmm. I actually see similar problems with 'what is a painting?' as
I do with 'what is a god?'.
If I use food colouring or bolognese sause instead of
acrylic/oil/watercolour is it 'paint'? What if I make a woodcut,
A painting is a two dimensional image made with pigments. It can have
three dimensional attributes, but that isn't a requirement.
That definition is problematic. It's too broad, because it includes
many things which are not paintings (photographs, for instance.) It's
too narrow, because it excludes things which ARE paintings (say, a
painting made without true pigments -- a black canvas).
...
AFAIK, a photograph is a painting, one produced via automation. :P
Is a bit pattern stored on a memory card (in my digital camera) a
painting? Is a bit pattern (a Photoshop document) on my hard drive
a painting?
It is if you can view it by observing an image in the media.
You can't, so it isn't.
Is the chemical imprint on a roll of film, prior to beng developed,
a painting?
Is everything I see a painting?
Have Fun
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Crisp" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
01 Sep 2003 09:54:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:09:06 +1000, TCS wrote
(in message
<slrnbl05ah.2ub.The.Central.Scrutinizer@linux.adamf625.kaosol.net>):
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:57:34 +1000, Martin Crisp
<Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 4:52:07 +1000, TCS wrote
(in message
<slrnbkv86m.2jea.The.Central.Scrutinizer@turing.kaosol.net>):
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:01:36 -0400, Marc Fleury <marcfleury@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:54:30 +1000, Martin Crisp
<Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 9:59:58 +1000, Cerberus wrote
I meant, what are the properties that all gods share?
My question was similar to asking "What is a painting?" You
wouldn't have to know which painting I mean, you could simply
list the properties of paintings.
Hmm. I actually see similar problems with 'what is a painting?' as
I do with 'what is a god?'.
If I use food colouring or bolognese sause instead of
acrylic/oil/watercolour is it 'paint'? What if I make a woodcut,
A painting is a two dimensional image made with pigments. It can have
three dimensional attributes, but that isn't a requirement.
That definition is problematic. It's too broad, because it includes
many things which are not paintings (photographs, for instance.) It's
too narrow, because it excludes things which ARE paintings (say, a
painting made without true pigments -- a black canvas).
...
AFAIK, a photograph is a painting, one produced via automation. :P
Is a bit pattern stored on a memory card (in my digital camera) a
painting? Is a bit pattern (a Photoshop document) on my hard drive
a painting?
It is if you can view it by observing an image in the media.
You can't, so it isn't.
OK, that seems like a reasonable way of ruling them out as
paintings. But doesn't it mean that (profoundly) blind people can
never own a painting? :-)
[Although, it could also be said that I never see anything as an
image in the media, I only ever see things that form 'bit-patterns'
on my retinas; oh excepting dreams, which I'm never sure if I 'see'
or not.]
Is the chemical imprint on a roll of film, prior to beng developed,
a painting?
Is everything I see a painting?
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: God definition |
28 Aug 2003 10:03:42 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:59:58 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com>
ejaculated:
J Forbes wrote:
Cerberus wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:39:45 GMT, Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote:
I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?
which one?
None specific, just what is a god?
My definition is "that which is not there"....or perhaps "other peoples'
imaginary friend".
The problem, you see, is that it's not easy (it may be impossible) to
define something which is a fantasy, which does not really exist.
You might get somewhere with the usual "omnipotent, invisible,
omniscient 'being'" definition. Perhaps add some stuff about "divine
revelation", "knows and cares about individual people", and such. But
when you get specific at all, you will find that your definition does
not work for some peoples' gods, so you get back to the first reply
above, which demands that you specify which god it is you want us to
define.
IOW, you're asking for something that you ain't gonna get.
I meant, what are the properties that all gods share?
They're imaginary.
My question was
similar to asking "What is a painting?" You wouldn't have to know which
painting I mean, you could simply list the properties of paintings.
--
<URL:http://www20.brinkster.com/beowulf9/gottod/JesusHatesTheLittleChildren.html>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
