Ben Goren wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> > Ben Goren wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
>
> I think you misunderstand me.
>
> Luke Skywalker doesn't exist, but the idea / concept / story of
> him certainly does. Luke Skywalker is a nonexistent Jedi Knight
> with all sorts of wondrous powers that don't actually exist.
>
> The fact that Luke Skywalker is a Jedi Knight is entirely
> orthagonal to the fact of his nonexistence and the nonexistence of
> Jedi Knights.
>
> Indeed, his name is ``Luke Skywalker.'' Saying that his name is
> unquestionably ``Luke Skywalker'' no more means that he exists
> than saying that he's a Jedi Knight means that he exists.
>
> The only difference with gods is that there are real things that
> exist and are gods (e.g., Frank's statues). But just because
> they're gods doesn't mean that they actually have any of the
> magical properties that their believers claim of them.
Then they shouldn't be called "gods" or else the word becomes
meaningless since it could be applied to pretty much anything with no
rhythm nor reason.
Their
> godhood is entirely independent of the veracity of the claims of
> the believers; it is instead entirely dependent on the beliefs of
> the believers.
>
> Indeed, if something actually /did/ have god-like powers but
> nobody considered it to be a god...well, then it wouldn't be a
> god.
Now we all pretty much agree what a dragon would look like if such
exists (basically a lizard with wings and breathes fire) and if we saw a
statute of a winged-lizard, we'd agree "that represents a dragon" but if
we saw the Statue of David, we'd say "that is not a dragon" and would
laugh at anyone who claimed it was.
We'd also pretty much agree what a tree would look like and can say
"that drawing represents a tree" or "that object is a tree" and would
laugh at anyone who pointed at something that's made of metal, burns gas
and has 4 wheels and called it "a tree."
So basically, in those two we have a fairly good idea of what the other
person means if we said "dragon" or "tree", even though one doesn't even
really exist, and we can look at some object and objectively (pun
intended) tell if that object (such as a drawing or a statute of
something) symbolizes another object (or class of objects) or if the
object (such as an actual tree or an actual dragon) possesses the
essential qualities of that class of objects.
We could both agree (I think) that if we found some entity that had
created the universe from nothing (not even from vacuum energy) that
such entity might be approaching the level of being able to claim the
title "god." Pretty much anyone alive would probably agree that such an
entity deserves at least consideration for such a title.
But if we were walking down the road and I picked up a stone, we'd both
agree "this stone can't have created the universe, nor does it
rationally symbolize such an entity, even if one exists."
But where we differ is that you would allow someone else to walk up and
say "oh, yes, that stone is a god simply because I believe it did create
the universe" or "oh, yes, that stone is a god simply because I believe
it represents/symbolizes that creator" and then you'd say "see? Gods do
exist and that rock is a god, even if I wouldn't wor****p it." But
there's no logical connection between this rock and such
creation/creator as opposed to any other rock and such creation/creator.
Now if you want to say "to THAT guy, that rock is what he perceives as a
god and thus HE thinks gods exist" I might agree. But to say "some gods
do exist for everyone and this rock is an example of one, period, simply
because there's at one person who thinks it's a god" (which is what you
seem to be saying and what Pester **** definitely claims) is to make the
word totally meaningless, capricious and arbitrary and does nothing but
remove any sort of logic from language (yeah, like English is very
logical already</sarcasm> :) ), since the same could be applied to all
sorts of words.
|
