Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (21226)	7/15/2005 3:20:11 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"You do agree that parties can agree on the definition of a term representing only an idea, don't you?" In which case you prove only that the IDEA of God exists. "the term God" IS a BEING is simply false. "what is called God" IS a BEING is simply false. The proper form of the argument would begin: IF God exists, THEN God is "a being than which no greater can be conceived" You could certainly say: The term "God" means (or may be defined as) "a being than which no greater can be conceived" This definition exists in the mind. But such a definition of a being which exists in the mind alone, is in fact NOT "a being than which a greater can be conceived". It is NOT a BEING at all. It is a definition.