May 2007

Mr. Atheist: (I don’t know your name)

Thank you for the quick reply.

So long as your homepage is in jest, i am fine with it.

You wrote: “Your proof of the existence of God is interesting, but it involves using a definition of “God” that most religious people would not except.” I disagree. I said: “If one defines god as whoever or whatever created the universe” I think most religious people would, in part at least, define god as “the creator” of the universe. Yes, they might also attach an omnipotent or omniscient part to it, but ,if some one creates something, aren’t they omnipotent in respect to this thing? if i create…oh, i don’t know…A painting. A solid, three dimensional painting that is hung on the wall. Can i not paint over a certain part if i choose, or tear it to shreds as i wish, or move it to another wall? Of course I can. In that respect, I am omnipotent over my painting. As for omniscience of God. In my painting, can i not tell you what brand of paint, or color of paint, or brush i used to paint it? I probably could. In that respect, I am Omniscient of my painting.

I eagerly await your reply.

P.S. Could you put a name on your site so we would know how to refer to you? that would make this easier.

P.P.S. I like your arguments against page, it’s well thought out.

You are right that most religious people would say that god is the creator of the universe, but that doesn’t imply that they would label whatever created the universe god. For example, Christianity requires that God be personal, and the concept of infinity (to use your original example) is not personal. I think it would also be misleading to say that infinity “created” the universe, in that “created” implies planning of some kind, and infinity is mindless.

I would also quibble with your use of the word omnipotent. I don’t think that omnipotence can be used as a relative term — it’s more “all or nothing.” A painter is not omnipotent with respect to her painting because she is still limited in what actions she can take regarding the painting (she can’t make it have never existed or stop it from aging, for example). The same would be said of omniscience — a painter might know what kind of paint was used but know nothing about how it sticks to the canvas, the chemistry of new colors coming from the mixing of old colors, etc.

So, if I were you, I’d back away from the all-encompassing definition of God that you are using. If you say “I believe God exists” because you are making it true by definition, then you will be implying to some people that you have religious beliefs that you may not have. That is deceptive, whether you intend it to be or not.

Responding to your P.S. — I don’t use my name (and prefer not to be referred to as “Mr.”) because I make a point of not discussing my gender. I have found that gender sometimes gets in the way of intelligent conversation, so I specifically avoid it.

Posted on May 28, 2007 at 10:16 pm by ideclare · Permalink
In: Evidence

Leave a Reply