If you can't substantiate the existence of a certain entity, just arbitrarily define it as something that exists. It's super intellectual. Join the dark web today.pic.twitter.com/h1dIzhhlF4
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Not a precise def. but there are some properties usually associated with it, like it being an agent, first mover, creator, etc. I'm not saying he can't define the term how he wishes but if it doesn't include these properties, he's not referencing the same topic as most believers.
who are those believers? Abrahamic monotheists? if so, is it necessary that he is addressing them specifically? if so, is it necessary that he uses their language convention? if so, is it necessary that he remains orthodox within that convention?
Monotheists, polytheists, etc. The clear majority of people who purport to believe in Gods in the world purport to see them as agents. Defining God as some abstract phenomena that exists is just vacuous wordplay.
I don't follow. What do you suppose he's attempting to do here? Are you reading this as an attempt at theology? I don't think it is.
If he's not making a theological claim, why use the term God? If he doesn't mean anything like what believers mean when they invoke "God," then he's just being intentionally obscure.
how about this as a definition of God that (I suspect) most believers would assent to: God is the organizing principle of all of creation. If you filter that through personal psychology how does it come out?
No, religious people believe specific propositions about the creator of the universe, what he wants, what will happen to them after they die, etc. Redefining these types of concepts to what you speculatively think might psychologically drive people is just wordplay.
excuse me but think I've missed your point. wordplay means what, here? "I don't like the words he used"? I think you're trying to say something more substantial than that but I missed it. Can you make a more specific criticism?
I think as to form though not precise content.
I don't know what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase?
I think there is an agreed upon (though perhaps not singular) definition of the word "God," even if no wide agreement about the epistemic status or properties of God, such that competent English users can make sense of sentences about the "Christian God," "MU Gods," etc.
His sentence is the answer to a hypothetical question: "what is God?" he answered psychologically rather than theologically. I don't see the problem with this.
Yeah, totally. In fact I now declare that God means my unending desire for pizza from this point forward.
is that demonstrated or manifested in your perception and action though? if it isn't, you aren't addressing what he said.
No, I'm giving an example of how anyone can redefine God to anything they want and it'll be totally vacuous and ridiculous if it doesn't actually entail a point.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.