Quote:
|
Originally Posted by verklingen
master of semantics
|
Thank for the compliment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by verklingen
For that specific discussion I decided to refrain from referencing God's specifics and instead refered to His status as prime mover, using Aquinas' logical conclusions to prove the necessity of a prime mover. Here, the specific qualities and characteristics of God and our relation to these qualities have been called into question, and I have accordingly asnwered in more specific detail.
So yes, when semantics will get in the way of talking about the possible existence of God (i.e. continually arguing with someone who says they will never believe in God because they don't like the Bible [for such is their close-mindedness]), I will refrain from addressing His qualities directly and merely speak of Him as a concept in order to promote fruitful discussion. But if one is directly asking for characteristics of transcendental service, discussing God's specific qualities is unavoidable.
|
All I'm trying to point out is that you can't have it both ways. It's bait and switch really...you get someone to agree that there must be a prime mover, a "god", albeit undefined and enigmatic (under the guise of "to promote a fruitful discussion"). Then later you say it does have distinct characteristics and is defined. Saying that "He" should be "served" isn't any better than saying god is "some giant man in the sky with a white beard who throws lightning bolts at people who use condoms." Just be consistent, that's all.
