Posted: Apr 25, 2011 1:25 pm
by hackenslash
Teuton wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Frankly, Kalamity Kraig's definition is hot air, and moreover, contains contradictory and self-refuting attributes.

I simply wanted to say that the classical, traditional definition of "God" is well known. This is not to say that all the concepts used in it are unproblematic, comprehensible, and self-consistent.

Fair enough. My point was that it isn't well-defined, because those contradictory and self-refuting attributes provide definitional inconsistency, so the 'define god' argument is still useful. More importantly, the 'define god' approach is a necessary step, because it a) gives substance to the discussion where previously there was none and, given this definition, b) demonstrates that this entity doesn't exist.