Those who were interested in my earlier post about NOMA are invited to read the modified version of http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo/atheist.html The last sentence of this short essay is: Unresolved conflicts in debates about God usually result from absence of agreements on what the word God stands for." Ludwik
This seems straightforward. The word "god" has no reality-based referent, nothing that can be identified, isolated, or measured in any way. So the word can mean anything, and indeed probably doesn't mean exactly the same thing to any two people.
That is why debates of that kind lead nowhere, unless we first agree on the meaning of the word God. Ludwik
A being or beings composed of fundamental energy who may have learned and gotten better and better at creating over infinite time in the past .. .would not meet the standard definition of God . who already would know all possible futures?! I have been told that belief in a being/beings/Being of fundamental energy who learns . would technically be a branch of atheism. . You may find this write up interesting: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research08.html#a06
