If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Originally posted by Eireann
"God" doesn't mean the same thing to all people, and the dictionary only provides a general, popular definition. You ask a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim to define "God" and you'll get four different answers. You ask 10 Christians to define "God" and you'll get 10 different answers. Some believe in a God that is inclusive of Jesus, and some don't. This is even true among Christians -- you have Trinitarians who believe Christ is a part of or a manifestation of the Godhead, and you have non-trinitarians who believe that while Christ is "of God," that Christ is not God himself. So no, a dictionary definition of "God" is hardly going to suffice, unless both parties agree to use such a limited definition.
What's wrong with using a limited definition if it's sufficient to the argument. Zakath doesn't believe in the most basic definition of "god", Bob does. Why make the debate needlessly complex over the details of specific religions when the issue is very basic? And why did Zakath put the ball in Bob's court when he could have just as easily stated HIS definition of "god" and gotten the ball rolling. He could just say, "this is the most fundamental definition of what I think 'god' is, and I don't believe in it."
My point is, if Bob defines "God" as "a higher power", it might not be enough. Zakath could believe in aliens or something that are, technically, a higher power than humans. They both need to find the lowest common denominator, so to speak, and debate that. Zakath could have started that process, but he decided to let Bob define it.
It might have actually been a smart move, because it puts Bob on the defensive.
Originally posted by sawrie
Can one prove to me that the physical universe exists?... (snipped the remaining existential questioning)
Is it utterly impossible for religionists like you to stick to the discussion at hand?
You might have missed it, but the question for the debate is "Does God Exist?" It is not your question about universal existence. That is another debate entirely.
Since there are many, many conflicting claims about what "God" means, we need to define that term early on to avoid misunderstandings...
Its amazing to me that one can say there is no God.
As do many folks here. Where we differ is the object of our faith...
"Everyone's gotta believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink!"
Luke 12:19-20 ‘And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.” "But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you...
Comment