Not much, really. I was just reading this really wacked out
book, and whenever the <god> meme came up, I was
replacing it with my definition. It actually made the book
somewhat self-consistant.
>It is possible to take a side of an argument without believing in it
>oneself (by the usual definition of belief), for instance to explore
>aspects of the argument (playing devil's advocate), to pretend agreement,
>or to win a formal debate or legal case. Thus, I think this new
>definition of yours would be confusing and not useful, in that it would
>muddy that important distinction without clarifying any others.
I certantly don't expect anyone to use these definitions, they
are presented for comparison to accepted definitions. BTW,
I <believe> that the side of an arguement that one takes, when
they have no incentive to take another side, will reveal a great
deal about their beliefs.
>As for the second definition, is this intended to categorize human beings
>as "gods", since some people believe that the universe was created for us?
>I have less of an opinion on this one, since I don't have much use for
>the word "god", on the whole.
I was just contemplating a being that would have no problems
with this world. I decided that such a being would be a "god",
not necessarily worthy of worship, but beyond anything we
have now.
CA Cook, LF
coreycook12@email.msn.com