If this is your position, then you just don't recognize it is what I have been trying to tell you all along yet you seem to think you have an argument with me.
Well, you replied to me, but whatever.
Except, as far as, "we now need a new word or a new way of using the old word", I do have a different point of view. No, we don't need to change the definition of god. That's part of the problem. As god beliefs fall by the wayside knocked over by better observations and understanding of the natural Universe, people reluctant to give up magical thinking just keep shifting the definition of gods. Do we need to redefine Zeus and see if we can come up with a way for him to throw lightning bolts around while being beyond the reach of scientific inquiry?
Well, the 'we need a new way of using the word' is a side issue. The real issue was that Piggy offered a kind of challenge -- god
cannot exist. This was offered as one problem for that claim -- it is just an old use of the word god that isn't covered by the idea of a 'being'. Piggy has since made it clear that he will only entertain 'god as a being' discussions, so this is a moot point.
And, no redefining a particular god would be daft and would miss the point. This is just a current strain in philosophy. It isn't concerned with trying to pass god off through some magical trick (though, I'm sure people will try since magical thinking is built into us).
From my understanding of Piggy's, "Gods can't exist", I put that in the context that if you have a natural universe which is rational, then you cannot have an irrational god in it. And if you do have an irrational god, then you don't have a natural universe that is rational. So if you accept that the natural Universe is rational, then it cannot have gods in it. I can't speak for that position and can't say I have correctly interpreted it.
From my perspective I say if you have a god which interacts with the Universe then that god should be detectable. And if gods are undetectable because they don't interact with the Universe then they are irrelevant.
As Piggy has made clear he will only entertain this sort of idea. But there is a central problem with your formulation above -- having a supernatural god does not necessarily obviate a rational universe. The universe can act according to its rules most of the time but be visited by some magical entity -- who is everywhere and nowhere (he's magical, after all) -- at times. The idea is completely unfalsifiable and fantastic and there is no reason why I sould believe it; but I'm not entirely sure that the idea is impossible (which was the original claim).
I find the argument that one can define a god which exists but is undetectable to be nothing more than an exercise in science semantics. And on that level, who cares anyway? You cannot see invisible pink unicorns either.
Of course it is semantics. The point was that the original statement "god cannot exist" was not properly worded. There are ways of thinking about this that use the word god where 'god' does exist. Except that there is no new being behind it.
In your discussion, I see nothing more than a different version of the definition of gods which have no physical presence in the Universe. It isn't that I don't get your point or don't understand what you are saying. It's that I see your discussion as merely a semantics argument. And that is something I don't see as a real discussion of the existence of gods. It is simply a useless discussion in semantics. Either such an argument addresses the principles of science which I don't disagree with, 'you cannot prove the negative' and 'you cannot test for something outside of the Universe'; or, such an argument addresses a useless discussion over the semantics of saying god cannot exist and going on to describe a nebulous thing as untestable, which in essence is a god that is outside of the Universe.
Useless discussion in semantics I can agree with; a different version of a god with no physical presence in the universe I cannot. There is no new being in this sort of discussion. It is a different use of a word, and that is all. Piggy labels that Humpty-Dumptyism, so I objected that the idea is old. It isn't really a new idea at all. That it is unfalsifiable is, again, beside the point.
I do not buy the argument for a minute that the Eastern view of gods which are the natural Universe has any more validity than the Western view of gods that are outside of the Universe. Both of those describe an irrelevant god for all intents and purposes. You can argue relevance doesn't matter. It doesn't if all you are arguing is semantics. And you'll just have to disagree with me on the god which is an entity being qualitatively different from the god which is a relationship with the Universe. I view the latter as a relationship and the former as an entity and it isn't because I do not understand you.
Nor do I. Which is why I am not arguing for that. Again -- there was a challenge made. This was an attempt to meet that challenge. Of course that god is irrelevant. A Buddhist would simply say, "Why, yes, thank you for noticing, you are well along the eightfold path."
All the concepts of god, if you follow the evidence, are creations of the human mind. I can create an awful lot of things in my mind. That doesn't give my thoughts any physical existence and a metaphysical existence is just another version of a place outside of the Universe.
Of course they are. They can't be anything but creations of the human mind. That is what concept means.
This is a thing with evidence of its existence. The problem with changing the god definition is it gets changed because it keeps getting disproved. Prayers not answered, God must not answer prayers. The conclusion should be, then it looks like God is a myth along with a thousand other myths. Instead the goal post is just moved further back.
It was an analogy to demonstrate the changing nature of language and nothing but. That was the whole point.
) does add a certain prop to Piggy's contention that God can't be defined into existence... a prop, not a proof.
