I'll try to find it, but that is very much not what I understood you to be saying. In particular, you said (not in the main text, I guess):
He demonstrates very well that no coherent meaning can be applied to the word "god"...and that this is enough to rule it out with no further consideration.
I understand that to mean Smith takes as axiomatic that there can be no useful discussion of any concept of divinity unless it has a fully consistent meaning. But Taoism (for instance) takes as axiomatic that there is no such thing. These are irreconcilable axioms, so either that's an inaccurate representation of his argument or his argument cannot be applied to that type of theological tradition.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:50 am (UTC)I understand that to mean Smith takes as axiomatic that there can be no useful discussion of any concept of divinity unless it has a fully consistent meaning. But Taoism (for instance) takes as axiomatic that there is no such thing. These are irreconcilable axioms, so either that's an inaccurate representation of his argument or his argument cannot be applied to that type of theological tradition.