night912>>You're mistaken, I did noticed that you've made a distinction between the two, but it doesn't matter whether, God/god
Can you do anything but assert (on faith) that it doesn't matter whether you speak the word "god" or the row of letters "God"? The word "god" (capitalized only when at the beginning of a sentences) can refer to many things of which we have vivid concepts of things worshiped, like 'Zeus' and 'Hercules', to name some imaginary things, and 'the sun' and 'the earth', to name some real things that people worship. But I know of no concept of anything that "God", "Yahweh", "Elohim" and "Allah" when spoken by a Christian, Jew, or Muslim could refer to. And -- you haven't told me of any concept they could be having when they speak or write those.
night912>> Santa/santa are still the same like how I explained above.<<
Everybody I know capitalizes "Santa". It's a perfectly meaningful word. We see Santas at many department stores in December.
nnight912>>I don't presuppose a definition of "god" ["God"] for Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. I let the theist define what they believe to be the concept of god.
But they all say "God is the creator and ruler of the universe". Are you saying that there are some who don't say that?
night912>>They put meaning in to the word.
How can you believe that "creator and ruler of the universe" makes sense? The words "creator" and "ruler" can only be defined in terms of an already existing universe. Saying "The universe exists is because somebody created it" is like saying, "The Internet exists because somebody googled 'how to create the Internet' and followed the instructions from that website." That is NOT a false statement, that's an utterance that makes no sense at all. That's because "googling" and "website" are defined in terms of the Internet. Before the Internet, "googling" and "website" were meaningless. It's the same with "creator" and "the universe". [I covered this in another thread "First Cause"]. You need for "universe" to already be a defined word before you can speak of "creating" and "ruling".
night912>>We communicate using words to describe other words, in effect, we give meanings to the words. I'll use your example, "Bliffle". In this context, even that is not meaningless. It's usage here is to show the concept of something that is meaningless, but by doing that, you've made it into something that is meaningful. I personally don't make the distinction of "God" and "god" as being different, but a Christian does. And therefore gives it a meaning. Your post above shows that "God" does have a meaning<<<
Yes, when you put quotation marks around a row of letters, what you have means that row of letters.
night912<<you've even given examples of it. It appears that you think that it's meaningless because you do not agree with their definition of the word.<<
I agree that "God" means the three letters that spell it. Not only is it meaningful, but "God" EXISTS! because I can see "God" written there on the screen where I typed it. If "God" (the three letters that spell it) didn't exist, I wouldn't be able to see them there on the screen, would I? Your mistake here is forgetting that Christians don't claim to worship "God" because they don't worship any alphabet letters. They say "I worship God", not "I worship "God" ". [They also don't say "I worship god".]
night912<<And you're also mistaken about me not knowing about Christians, Jews, and Muslims. I know about them though my interactions with them. >>
Then why haven't you told of any concept you believe they have for "God", "Yahweh", "Elohim", or "Allah"?
night912<<I accept it when they say that they believe the things that they believe.>>
Accept what? Can't you say what you're talking about that they say that you say you 'accept'?
night912<<I don't presuppose a belief for them and become the authority in regards to their beliefs.<<
So I take it that you believe that when Christians, Jews and Muslims speak or write the rows of letters "God", "Yahweh", "Elohim", and "Allah", they are referring to something. What do you believe they are referring to? Please answer.
Your whole argument fails because it is a fallacious argument and is contingent on using the fallacies that you've committed, in order it to even have the appearance of being an argument, let alone a rational one. Off the top of my head, I can name two, moving the goalpost and special pleading. And of course, a strawman has to be thrown in as one of your counterargument against mine. You've used, "concept" as being something that we use alongside a word and its definition. But then you throw in a restriction only allowing concepts that are aligned with your argument. Then there's also the moving of the goalpost. You started off with using Santa as an example for the position of the achievable goal. Then once I've demonstrated that I've reached the goal, which it was explaining how it is meaningful the concept of "God" is, which was the equivalent to the concept of Santa. And response to that was, "we're not talking about Santa." It's laughable that someone even considered that reasoning as being a rational.
And of course the strawman came in when you tried to represent my argument as being an argument for just the actual three letter word, "God." And that was after I had clarified my position.
You are wrong when you used Zeus as being the concept for "god." Zeus is an example of a god, not the concept of god. One needs to have a concept of what "god" is in order to consider Zeus falling into the category of a god. So you failed on this point.
Next, your internet analogy also fails because you are describing something that is not equivalent to the "creator"/created in regards to the universe. You are arguing about a concept when it comes to a creator and the universe. But in your internet analogy, you are arguing about the actual words that can be found on the internet. It is nothing more than a bait and switch tactic that happens to be quite transparent, at least for some. But in doing so, you've managed to confuse yourself and the end. I noticed that once you argued that the existence of the concept of "creator/created" is dependent on the universe being in existence beforehand. But in actuality, concepts are dependent on us, humans. Concepts only exist because the human mind exist and is able to come up with the concepts. Searching for information on Google regarding how the internet was created can be found on the internet. The words that you see are not the mechanism how the internet was created, but the concept in which those words are used to describe the process, is the mechanism. So your point here also failed.
You accept the concept that Zeus is a god, and people such as the ancient Greeks once worshipped him as being a god. But when it comes to Christians, Jews and Muslims, you moved the goal further to away. Zeus is the label we put on the particular "god" that the former believe in and "God" is the label we put on the particular "god" that the latter believes in.
And unlike you, I don't assert a concept of what "God" is and is not, then handing it to Christians and telling them that you know them more than they know themselves. Besides, you've already given examples of it already. Your argument regarding their beliefs is the same as what some apologists argue regarding atheists. The argument that, "atheists really do believe that a god exist, they just don't want to accept it."
It all comes down to you believing that "God" is meaningless because you are unwilling to accept the concept that a Christian has given you regarding their beliefs on the god that they believe in. A concept that doesn't make sense to you, does not necessarily mean that it's meaningless. And not accepting that their god exist is not the same as not accepting that they believe that their god exist. It's not a rational way of thinking if someone defends a dishonest position, the position that asks a Christian to explain their reasons behind their usage of "God" then after the explanation, one rejects their reasons simply because it is not what the individual had in mind.
BTW,
Just remember this one thing, you don't really believe all those things that you've said. You might think and act as if you do, but in actuality, you don't. Instead, what you really believe, are all the things that I said in my explanation that I presented. And if you can come to accept it, who knows, santa might even bring you a present for Christmas, with a note that reads,
To: the actual person, and not the word "
Igtheism" that is found on the internet, may this present also give you meaning how like it does with those who believe that I exist.
From: Santa