22 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you understand that there is no such a thing as "my definition of theist"? "Theist" is any person that accepts "theism" -and I repeat once more, because probably you missed my reply to our vistesd, the definition of theism according to the Merriam-Webster:
But only by your definition of "theist". It is not the most commonly used definition. More importantly you made similar claims about "religion", and I think you would would be stretching definitions even further if you were to claim that "religion" implies "theism" implies "creator God".
Most importantly, you seem to be simply overlooking the fact that ...[text shortened]... good reason for that belief. Any sensible person would consider the answer unknown.
Date: 1678
:belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.
Well, I am talking about theists and theism, regardless of the religion of the theist and according to this definition specifically. I never imagined it 's so tricky😵
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleWell, that might be a definition of Western (and especially Christian) monotheism; it certainly seems to rely on that cultural context.
Fine, I would anyway come to this point -but I will cover baith the meaning and the use, for baith are essential🙂
Let’s define theism -I copy pasted from the Merriam-Webster the following:
Date: 1678
:belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the w ...[text shortened]... to learn more about a theist concept that does not accept the idea of a "Creator God"
😵
But other people use the word "god" to reference beings that are not so restricted, and have a different cultural context. I cannot exclude them. I certainly cannot call them non-theists (or no-god religions).
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by vistesdI see your point, I agree with you and I am thankful!
It’s not often that you and I disagree! 🙂 Usually we find that we have just been examining and agreed upon principle from different angles. Now, with regard to your presentation of the Norse mythology:
Excellent! Now, the pre-existence of fire and ice implies (even if in a seething “chaotic” way) pre-existing substance co-existing with Ginnungagap.* ...[text shortened]... sure that that represents an original understanding within the context of that mythology itself.
And yes, my interpretation of Ginnungagap is liberal😵
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by vistesdrgr that; once we overextend the definition we find ourselves in a different position😵
Well, that might be a definition of Western (and especially Christian) monotheism; it certainly seems to rely on that cultural context.
But other people use the word "god" to reference beings that are not so restricted, and have a different cultural context. I cannot exclude them. I certainly cannot call them non-theists (or no-god religions).
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleI'm not sure it's a matter of over-extending so much as one of finding a sufficient extenstion that is not hopelessly vague. (I have given it another try in the bolded offering below.)
rgr that; once we overextend the definition we find ourselves in a different position😵
There is a second, broader definition of theism in my Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary:
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (as opposed to atheism).
The first, more limiting definition, is a bit closer to the one you have given: “1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism)”. [Note how the word “God” is given a prejudicial capital “G” in this first one, and that it treats theism strictly as monotheism. Such dictionaries only present the general conventions; I doubt that any scholarly work on comparative religion would define theism in this way.]
Definition 2. raises the question of how the word “god” is to be understood. John Ayto’s Dictionary of Word Origins suggests that “the underlying etymological meaning of god would be that which is invoked”, probably coming from the Indo-European *ghut, which may be related to the Sanskrit havrate.
What we seem to have in these competing definitions is one that is too exclusive, and one that is too broad to offer much help here (as is Ayto’s analysis). When I looked up the word “god” in my dictionary, there was the same problem (also with “deity” ).
I’m not sure that a clear, concise definition can be had that is not too exclusive. I might try “belief in preternatural or supernatural beings that exercise some creative and/or organizing powers over the natural universe or specific domains thereof”.
In any event, it seems clear (at least to me) that not all religious systems define “god” as “the ground and source of being”, or as the creator of being, or even as the “supreme being”.
22 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by lausey====================================
Let's assume you have a precise definition of a Christian God with certain characteristics etc. It would be easy (or easier!) to prove he does exist, as all you just have to do is find this God with those characteristics.
However, proving that he DOESN'T exist wouldn't be as easy, as to *not* find him will require looking everywhere in this universe and possible multi-verses to make sure he doesn't exist.
However, proving that he DOESN'T exist wouldn't be as easy, as to *not* find him will require looking everywhere in this universe and possible multi-verses to make sure he doesn't exist.
=====================================
I think you are right. You would have to be omniscient to prove god does not exist. But if you were omniscient that is a main characteristic of God. Then you would be God. And then you would have to prove that you yourself do not exist. Which of course would be self refuting.
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by AgergOk I can't actually physically SHOW you God, therefore we have to start with this premise
There has existed only one apple. I have just finished eating an entire apple. [b]Therefore you have never eaten apples.
Looks convincing doesn't it? But did you see what I did? I asserted some premise and failed to justify it (that there is only one apple); and this poorly justified premise led to a dubious conclusion.* Certainly not a proof!
...[text shortened]... the case you've never eaten apples anyway. Despite this the argument used is not valid.[/i][/b]
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleYou do not make it clear whether "belief in a god or gods" is theism in your view. Even the Bible mentions non-creator gods. Does belief in their existence constitute theism? If so, your claim by definition fails.
Date: 1678
:belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.
Well, I am talking about theists and theism, regardless of the religion of the theist and according to this definition specifically. I never imagined it 's so tricky😵
You then again repeat the error of equating religion to theism. They are not equivalent.
Maybe you should give your definition of religion too.
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by vistesdI see your point and I understand it in full, but again you attribute a broader definition to the notion "theism". I did not place these systems under the umbrella of theism because I followed strictly Cudworth’s notion (belief to a personal God who is in full active in the creation, governance and ruling of the universe). The Norse and Taoist systems are not related to Cudworth’s theism although they focus on the belief in preternatural or supernatural beings that exercise some creative and/or organizing powers over the natural universe or specific domains thereof. Controversies. And I dislike controversies!
I'm not sure it's a matter of over-extending so much as one of finding a sufficient extenstion that is not hopelessly vague. (I have given it another try in the bolded offering below.)
There is a second, broader definition of theism in my Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary:
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (as opposed to a ...[text shortened]... “the ground and source of being”, or as the creator of being, or even as the “supreme being”.
So you had me forced to do my chores on this field after a long time, and finally I felt I could settle down with some pieces of information that were well offered at http://www.pantheismtoday.com/ amongst else. Here I was:
(Definitions of Theism):
a. “The doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods” *1
b. “A philosophical system which accepts a transcendent and personal God who not only created but also preserves and governs the world, the contingency of which does not exclude miracles and the exercise of human freedom.”*2
c. “The belief that there is a supreme personal being or God who created everything but himself.”*3
d. “God is separate from the world, of which God is Creator.” & “God is still active in a world that continues to be dependent on the divine will.” *4
e. “the belief that a god or gods exist.”*5
f. “the idea that there is a supreme God (or Goddess) who generates or creates the cosmos, and who maintains it and finally destroys it. This God has the power to save beings through his grace. Two major theistic gods in Hinduism are: Vishnu and Shiva.” *6
g. “theism – Believing in a deity or deities (god/gods). A belief in religion. (Greek theos: god).”*7
h. “The term “theism” derives from the Greek theos meaning God. The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).”* 8
Sources:
1. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
2. www.stsams.org/dictionary.html
3. www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/4378925.htm
4. www.srsp.net/new/sample_material/primary/extras/glossary.html
5. www.strongatheism.net/intro/lexicon/
6. http://www.queens.edu/undergraduate/courses/RELG349Aglossary.asp
7. http://www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm
8. Halsey, William; Robert H. Blackburn, Sir Frank Francis (1969). Louis Shores. ed. Collier’s Encyclopedia. 22 (20 ed.). Crowell-Collier Educational Corporation. pp. 266–267
9. Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
10. “Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary“. Retrieved 2009-01-13.
11. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Second Edition; The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, 1997, or the current Encyclopedia Britannica
So I happily agree with you that not all religious systems define “god” as “the ground and source of being”, or as the creator of being, or even as the “supreme being”. Well played my friend, way to go, I thank you for the lesson!
😵
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't equate religion to theism; I was following the original Cudworth’s notion, and in that context the belief in the existence of the non-creator gods as it is mentioned in the Bible is not theism the way Cudworth offers it but idolatry
You do not make it clear whether "belief in a god or gods" is theism in your view. Even the Bible mentions non-creator gods. Does belief in their existence constitute theism? If so, your claim by definition fails.
You then again repeat the error of equating religion to theism. They are not equivalent.
Maybe you should give your definition of religion too.
😵
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleYet you frequently make claims about all religious people as if all religious people are theists - which is not the case at all. Similarly you talk of religion as if it is equivalent to theism.
I don't equate religion to theism;
I was following the original Cudworth’s notion, and in that context the belief in the existence of the non-creator gods as it is mentioned in the Bible is not theism the way Cudworth offers it but idolatry
😵
So essentially you have your own specific definition for "theism" despite your denials.
And no, some of the gods in the Bible have nothing to do with idolatry. Idolatry is the worshiping of idols.
I was in fact thinking of mention of gods in genesis but I have been unable to find any references so I may be mistaken.
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow do I have "my own definition for theism" when I use the original definition of this notion that it was introduced by Cudworth?!
Yet you frequently make claims about all religious people as if all religious people are theists - which is not the case at all. Similarly you talk of religion as if it is equivalent to theism.
[b]I was following the original Cudworth’s notion, and in that context the belief in the existence of the non-creator gods as it is mentioned in the Bible is no ...[text shortened]... mention of gods in genesis but I have been unable to find any references so I may be mistaken.
Furthermore, I 'm not talking of religion as if it is equivalent to theism and I never claimed that all religious people are theists. I claimed that the theists, according to the original definition of the notion "theism" (specifically, as it was introduced and meant by Cudworth, the man who brought up the notion theism), they believe regardless of their religion that "God is the ground/ source of all being".
Finally, in the Bible, thus in Christianity and therefore in Cudworth's context, idolatry refers to the worship of gods other than the God of Abraham through the use of idols😵
23 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleIt seems it was my error. I cant actually find a post where you used "religion" without the word "theist". I thought you had.
Furthermore, I 'm not talking of religion as if it is equivalent to theism and I never claimed that all religious people are theists.
I claimed that the theists, according to the original definition of the notion "theism" (specifically, as it was introduced and meant by Cudworth, the man who brought up the notion theism), they believe regardless of their religion that "God is the ground/ source of all being".
So it is essentially nothing more than a claim by definition. Seems rather odd that you bothered to bring it up in the first place as it was a somewhat meaningless statement.
Finally, in the Bible, thus in Christianity and therefore in Cudworth's context, idolatry refers to the worship of gods other than the God of Abraham through the use of idols😵
But that is not equivalent to the claim that either the belief in the existence of other gods is idolatry (it isn't), or the claim that worship of other gods is idolatry (it isn't). It is only idolatry when the use of idols (a very tricky term in itself) is involved.
I actually believe that idols have never actually existed - and thus idolatry has also never been practiced.
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhitehead“Eidolon” in Ancient Greek is the effigy/ image/ model of non-existent or false persons and/ or objects (hence the Latin idolum, the English idol, the French idole etc.)
It seems it was my error. I cant actually find a post where you used "religion" without the word "theist". I thought you had.
[b]I claimed that the theists, according to the original definition of the notion "theism" (specifically, as it was introduced and meant by Cudworth, the man who brought up the notion theism), they believe regardless of their re ...[text shortened]... idols have never actually existed - and thus idolatry has also never been practiced.
However the word “idolatry” in the NT is a loan translation of the Hebrew “avodad elilim” (on the other hand, Sacha Stern claims that only the term “avoda zara” appears to have been original in the rabbinic writings denoting paganism), it has a derogatory meaning and it denotes paganism/ foreign worship/ worship of planets and constellations. This means that "idolatry" (NT) is not denoting solely the worshipping of the idols, but paganism in whole -it denotes the "practice of the wicked"
😵