Shai_hulud wrote:To be fair, agreeing on definitions when a word has a fuzzy definition to start with is also an important part of communication. It's just really silly to not discuss those terms, and then act confused or insulted when people don't understand what the hell we're talking about. Which is sort of the only real reason why we bother with standardized language at all, since otherwise we would end up jabbering like Mediator Moties every time we wanted to talk about something.
We only wish we could jabber to the same effect as a Mediator.
Sure, I agree with you about our duty to clarify our words to one another when dealing with stuff, especially imaginary stuff like D'n'D rules and theology. That wasn't what Kreistor was doing of course, he was arbitrarily saying "When I use the term God it means what I want it to mean". The pure distilled recipe for miscommunication and/or confusion.
effataigus wrote:Can God create a species so intelligent that it can fathom God? Sure, part of omnipotence is the power to become fathomable.
Not if he is also Ineffable, which just as a matter of course any being who can create matter out of nothing by sheer act of will is. Which, regardless of people trying to avoid it, is exactly the description of capital G God, Creator God, be he Cronus or Yahweh or Allah or Brahma. They can do the inexplicable, they are ineffable. It means unknowable. So, he can't "make" a being who can know him.
Anyway, this is just meta-physical quibbling.
effataigus wrote:God with a capital G just means you're talking about something named God... not any specific iteration. The only names that are obviously a specific person in this forum are Rob, Parson, Tramennis... etc.
I, and the Concise Oxford Dictionary* respectfully and totally disagree with you.
Lipkin wrote: I don't mind being wrong, but being dismissed as stupid, and a lost cause, does not feel good.
I don't think you are stupid or a lost cause. =]
Not even wrong. Either.
* i.e. all those people who speak English correctly, too.