Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:30 pm
No, we aren't. What you are trying to argue, it seems to me, is that it doesn't matter how many definitions of "God" people have, they'll all understand the same thing anyway...which is obviously not going to be the case at all.
You understand the word god when it appears in the sentence "this is a list of Greek gods and their preferred hats..." don't you? You understand the word God when used as a definite descriptor for the Christian god.
No. I understand different concepts are intended by the use of the word. Zeus has nothing whatsoever to do with the Judeo-Christian God. One is a contingent, mythical being with a short lifespan. The other is the eternal "I AM." They're not even remotely comparable; which is why we use small "g" "god" for Zeus, and the big "G" "God" for the only real one.
When a muslim uses the word God as a definite descriptor to Allah the God of Islam, you understand that too.
A different "god" again. Their "god" wants children pushed into minefields, and Jews wiped off the face of the Earth. Mine says, "Let the little children come to Me," and is the God of the Jews. They are decidedly not the same entity at all.
That's the importance of specifying one's conception of "god" or "God."
So ... multiple senses and multiple referents and no such things as a single sufficient definition then.... hardly surprising.
Unless you have a theory of meaning that requires singular ostensive definitions for everything such as you would find if your understanding of phil of lang went only as far as ... say .... Locke perhaps? Is your understanding of these things that words are like little pointers to pictures hidden inside your mind?
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:03 pm
London is a different country. Have you not heard of the north south divide? I've driven through London a few times, and based on that, I would say London is full of twats.
Criticism accepted
I only remembered you lived down there after I'd said it.
I was only referring to the way they drive. I'm sure they are all lovely people once they get out of their cars.
Good news! Like about half of people born in London, I never bothered learning to drive.
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:51 pm
I would stop short of calling them evil, though.
I wonder if they'd do the same for you...actually, no, I don't: they wouldn't. We both know that. For them, you're just an infidel. So would I be, for that matter.
They say that Christianity is a religion of peace, but all you seem to want to do is incite conflict. I don't really see much difference between you and those you are condemning.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:52 pm
No. I understand different concepts are intended by the use of the word. Zeus has nothing whatsoever to do with the Judeo-Christian God. One is a contingent, mythical being with a short lifespan. The other is the eternal "I AM." They're not even remotely comparable; which is why we use small "g" "god" for Zeus, and the big "G" "God" for the only real one.
When a muslim uses the word God as a definite descriptor to Allah the God of Islam, you understand that too.
A different "god" again. Their "god" wants children pushed into minefields, and Jews wiped off the face of the Earth. Mine says, "Let the little children come to Me," and is the God of the Jews. They are decidedly not the same entity at all.
That's the importance of specifying one's conception of "god" or "God."
Incorrect, as usual. The reason the word "god" refers to Zeus, Ares, Jehova and Allah is because of their similarities. All are "mythical beings", even if they exist.
Everyone knows Zeus is not Ares. Yet both are called gods. So is Yaweh. When we talk about the meaning of the word "god", we must focus on the similarities, not the differences.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:40 pm
You understand the word god when it appears in the sentence "this is a list of Greek gods and their preferred hats..." don't you? You understand the word God when used as a definite descriptor for the Christian god.
No. I understand different concepts are intended by the use of the word. Zeus has nothing whatsoever to do with the Judeo-Christian God. One is a contingent, mythical being with a short lifespan. The other is the eternal "I AM." They're not even remotely comparable; which is why we use small "g" "god" for Zeus, and the big "G" "God" for the only real one.
When a muslim uses the word God as a definite descriptor to Allah the God of Islam, you understand that too.
A different "god" again. Their "god" wants children pushed into minefields, and Jews wiped off the face of the Earth. Mine says, "Let the little children come to Me," and is the God of the Jews. They are decidedly not the same entity at all.
That's the importance of specifying one's conception of "god" or "God."
So ... multiple senses and multiple referents and no such things as a single sufficient definition then.... hardly surprising.
It's so simple. You're needlessly trying to make it complex, so that nobody will notice how impossible your claim was, I suppose. But it's so simple that anybody can easily understand it.
Different people and different traditions believe that the word "god" refers to different entities. When the Greeks call Zeus a "god" and the Romans call Jove a "god" and the Hindus speak of "god" and "gods," and the Muslims speak of "Allah" as "god," and the Hebrews say they worship "the one true God" they are making very different claims. So to speak across those lines without specifying which conception of "god" is being spoken about is bound to result in errors.
In fact, the formal separation of "god" and "God" is intended to try to address this sort of confusion: which, in a small way, it does; but with very equivocal results.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:52 pm
No. I understand different concepts are intended by the use of the word. Zeus has nothing whatsoever to do with the Judeo-Christian God. One is a contingent, mythical being with a short lifespan. The other is the eternal "I AM." They're not even remotely comparable; which is why we use small "g" "god" for Zeus, and the big "G" "God" for the only real one.
A different "god" again. Their "god" wants children pushed into minefields, and Jews wiped off the face of the Earth. Mine says, "Let the little children come to Me," and is the God of the Jews. They are decidedly not the same entity at all.
That's the importance of specifying one's conception of "god" or "God."
So ... multiple senses and multiple referents and no such things as a single sufficient definition then.... hardly surprising.
It's so simple. You're needlessly trying to make it complex, so that nobody will notice how impossible your claim was, I suppose. But it's so simple that anybody can easily understand it.
Different people and different traditions believe that the word "god" refers to different entities. When the Greeks call Zeus a "god" and the Romans call Jove a "god" and the Hindus speak of "god" and "gods," and the Muslims speak of "Allah" as "god," and the Hebrews say they worship "the one true God" they are making very different claims. So to speak across those lines without specifying which conception of "god" is being spoken about is bound to result in errors.
In fact, the formal separation of "god" and "God" is intended to try to address this sort of confusion: which, in a small way, it does; but with very equivocal results.
Is God the only word that gets this treatment?
And God isn't the same word for Catholics who believein a Trinity as it is for whatever you are, right?
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 10:01 pm
So ... multiple senses and multiple referents and no such things as a single sufficient definition then.... hardly surprising.
It's so simple. You're needlessly trying to make it complex, so that nobody will notice how impossible your claim was, I suppose. But it's so simple that anybody can easily understand it.
Different people and different traditions believe that the word "god" refers to different entities. When the Greeks call Zeus a "god" and the Romans call Jove a "god" and the Hindus speak of "god" and "gods," and the Muslims speak of "Allah" as "god," and the Hebrews say they worship "the one true God" they are making very different claims. So to speak across those lines without specifying which conception of "god" is being spoken about is bound to result in errors.
In fact, the formal separation of "god" and "God" is intended to try to address this sort of confusion: which, in a small way, it does; but with very equivocal results.
Is God the only word that gets this treatment?
Heck, no. Consider the term "manners". To what do they refer? You can't know, until the speaker provides you with the right context. "Manners" on the football pitch and "manners" at the dinner table -- and at different kinds of dinner table, like a formal dining table versus a taco stand -- differ widely. "Manners" at an Indian meal mean you must not put your left hand on the table. "Manners" for an Englishman of traditional sorts means you squash your peas on the back of your fork. And what sense of "manner" is being used when somebody asks, "What manner of dog is this?" So just to have the word "manners" doesn't tell you very much.
And Goid isn't the same word for Catholics who believein a Trinity as it is for whatever you are, right?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 10:17 pm
It's so simple. You're needlessly trying to make it complex, so that nobody will notice how impossible your claim was, I suppose. But it's so simple that anybody can easily understand it.
Different people and different traditions believe that the word "god" refers to different entities. When the Greeks call Zeus a "god" and the Romans call Jove a "god" and the Hindus speak of "god" and "gods," and the Muslims speak of "Allah" as "god," and the Hebrews say they worship "the one true God" they are making very different claims. So to speak across those lines without specifying which conception of "god" is being spoken about is bound to result in errors.
In fact, the formal separation of "god" and "God" is intended to try to address this sort of confusion: which, in a small way, it does; but with very equivocal results.
Is God the only word that gets this treatment?
Heck, no. Consider the term "manners". To what do they refer? You can't know, until the speaker provides you with the right context. "Manners" on the football pitch and "manners" at the dinner table -- and at different kinds of dinner table, like a formal dining table versus a taco stand -- differ widely. And what sense of "manner" is being used when somebody asks, "What manner of dog is this?" So just to have the word "manners" doesn't tell you very much.
And Goid isn't the same word for Catholics who believein a Trinity as it is for whatever you are, right?
I don't know any "goids."
So manners and gods are unique words whenever any personunderstands them differently to any other person.
And that means that when you say "God" and a catholic says "God" that concept is not shared either.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 10:32 pm
So manners and gods are unique words whenever any personunderstands them differently to any other person.
Well, and lots of other words, too. Consider "bow." Is it a thing in a girl's hair, or a weapon, or a part of a violin, or the front of a boat, or a verb meaning, "to bend in the middle," or a diffusion of light after a rainstorm, or a type of fish...?
Many words have a broad set of meanings, but not unlimited. And to different speakers, they may or may not mean approximately the same thing. But one can by no means take for granted that the mere appearance of the word means the speakers are agreeing on the nature of the referent of that word.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 10:32 pm
So manners and gods are unique words whenever any personunderstands them differently to any other person.
Well, and lots of other words, too. Consider "bow." Is it a thing in a girl's hair, or a weapon, or a part of a violin, or the front of a boat, or a verb meaning, "to bend in the middle," or a diffusion of light after a rainstorm, or a type of fish...?
Many words have a broad set of meanings, but not unlimited. And to different speakers, they may or may not mean approximately the same thing. But one can by no means take for granted that the mere appearance of the word means the speakers are agreeing on the nature of the referent of that word.
And that means that when you say "God" and a catholic says "God" that concept is not shared either.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 10:32 pm
So manners and gods are unique words whenever any personunderstands them differently to any other person.
Well, and lots of other words, too. Consider "bow." Is it a thing in a girl's hair, or a weapon, or a part of a violin, or the front of a boat, or a verb meaning, "to bend in the middle," or a diffusion of light after a rainstorm, or a type of fish...?
Many words have a broad set of meanings, but not unlimited. And to different speakers, they may or may not mean approximately the same thing. But one can by no means take for granted that the mere appearance of the word means the speakers are agreeing on the nature of the referent of that word.
And that means that when you say "God" and a catholic says "God" that concept is not shared either.
Which "Catholic"? What does he believe about God? That will determine whether what he says and what I say when we speak of "God" are the same.
But I can tell you for certain that an Atheist does not have my conception of God, nor does a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, an animist, a polytheist...
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 10:42 pm
Well, and lots of other words, too. Consider "bow." Is it a thing in a girl's hair, or a weapon, or a part of a violin, or the front of a boat, or a verb meaning, "to bend in the middle," or a diffusion of light after a rainstorm, or a type of fish...?
Many words have a broad set of meanings, but not unlimited. And to different speakers, they may or may not mean approximately the same thing. But one can by no means take for granted that the mere appearance of the word means the speakers are agreeing on the nature of the referent of that word.
And that means that when you say "God" and a catholic says "God" that concept is not shared either.
Which "Catholic"? What does he believe about God? That will determine whether what he says and what I say when we speak of "God" are the same.
But I can tell you for certain that an Atheist does not have my conception of God, nor does a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, an animist, a polytheist...
Nobody but you has your conception of God. Catholics are surely ruled out by this heretical Trinitarian thing for instance.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 11:04 pm
Nobody but you has your conception of God.
If they have the Biblical conception of God, they do. And plenty do. Not just Christians, either. My conception of God is not extraordinary; but it isn't the only version of "god" that human beings have ever had.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 11:04 pm
Nobody but you has your conception of God.
If they have the Biblical conception of God, they do. And plenty do. Not just Christians, either. My conception of God is not extraordinary; but it isn't the only version of "god" that human beings have ever had.
how could you possibly know that somebody else's conception exactly matches yours in every single detail?
I don't know any "goids."