Ben Goren wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> > Saying that "Zeus isn't a god" is different than saying "Zeus is
> > a god that doesn't exist." Where I agree with Dubh Ghall is that
> > you can look at a statue that John Doe claims "this is a god"
> > and say "that statue exists but the god that it's supposed to
> > represent does not and thus the statue is not a god" just as you
> > can say "the word 'Zeus' exists but the god that it's supposed
> > to represent does not."
>
> Mark beat me to it, but all it takes to be a god (according
> to one part of the definition) is to have somebody think
> you're a god. It's the subject, not the object, that makes the
> determination.
The definition basically amounted to "something that has divine powers
or something that represents something that has divine powers." We both
agree that "something that has divine powers" doesn't exist so that
leaves us with the second part. Where we disagree is if X can represent
Y if Y doesn't exist and I say it can't, even though X might exist
itself. If X doesn't represent Y (even if someone claims it does) then
it can't be what it was claimed to be. To say that "if someone claims X
is a Z then X must be a Z and thus Z's exist" makes the term Z so
meaningless as to be not useful at all, since someone, somewhere, will
find just about any X and claim it's a Z.
I used the example of cut glass and diamonds. Either a diamond is "a
crystalline form of carbon" and there's no way that cut glass can be a
diamond or "a diamond is anything that someone thinks is a diamond" and
the term becomes meaningless and useless.
>
> Think of it like this: you'd be nuts to say that Luke Skywalker
> really existed or that one can move objects through sheer Force of
> will, but you'd also be nuts to say that Luke Skywalker is
> anything other than a Jedi Knight. That Jedi Knights do not and
> cannot exist in reality is irrelevant when it comes to the
> question of whether or not to classify Luke Skywalker as a Jedi
> Knight.
I agree with that part. But that doesn't mean Luke (or Jedi Knights in
general) exist, which is where we disagree. I can agree that John Doe
says that statute on his mantle is a god but I disagree that saying such
means gods exist.
> Smaug doesn't exist, either, and neither do dragons, but Smaug is
> most certainly a dragon.
>
> Just the same, it doesn't matter that a cow is just a cow. The
> fact that some Hindu thinks it's a god makes it a god.
>
> It's entirely unnecessary for a god to have any of the
> supernatural properties that some superstitious schmuck claims it
> has. It's not even necessary that the god exist. ``God'' is merely
> the word we use to describe that particular concept / thing
> / whatever: something -- whether fictional, misunderstood, or
> otherwise -- that has a certain set of properties.
But to allow a god to be anything that someone claims is a god means
that said gods can have ANY properties that someone wants to attribute
to them and thus they no longer have "a certain set of properties." But
if a god is defined as "something that has divine powers (or substitute
any other specific property(ies) that you want to that would make it a
god) or something that represents something that has divine powers (or
what-ever specific properties that you gave)" then I stand by my
statement that no such gods have been shown to exist.
I don't disagree that we can give a list of properties (such as scales,
wings, breaths fire) and say "if something appears that has those
properties, it's a dragon." I just disagree with "see? I drew a picture
of a dragon. That means they really do exist." Pictures of what someone
thinks of the concept of dragons exist. Statues that represent what
someone thinks of a god exist. I just don't agree that it means that
gods, themselves, exist any more than I agree that a drawing or picture
of a dragon shows that dragons exist.
|
