Message 257 of 318 (675852) 10-16-2012 2:30 PM

Reply to: Message 256 by jar 10-16-2012 2:21 PM

I would argue that in any philosophical discussion, people learn more from disagreement than they do from agreement. Buzsaw always talks about the "sheeple" and yet talks reverently of the Shepherd (or whom he defines as the Shepherd.) You and he always disagree, but I would argue that he has learned more from you having disagreed with him than it would have been had you agreed. Same with me. You and I go way back. And then there is our friend from across the pond...Mr. Straggler!

Do you agree with my assertion that GOD (by definitional consensus) is desiring communion with humans or is aware of our minds, wills, and emotions so as to be familiar with us or would you argue that definitional consensus has not yet been reached?

I would argue the latter, seeing that if GOD exists then not enough information has been established to even form a full definition, much less a consensus. (apologies to Jesus, whom makes communion a possibility)

And no, I cannot define God. The God whom I would want has the following characteristics.

Desires communion with humans when we become capable of such an event...which we are not yet ready.

Edited by Phat, : changed subtitle

Edited by Phat, : changed thrust of argument/assertion with the understanding that I might be wrong.

Edited by Phat, : added

---

This message is a reply to:
	Message 256 by jar, posted 10-16-2012 2:21 PM		jar has acknowledged this reply

---

Message 258 of 318 (675991) 10-18-2012 8:10 AM

Reply to: Message 253 by jar 10-16-2012 1:48 PM

It is (to use your phrase) a word salad in the most literal sense. Just a combination of definition-less words to which people can apply whatever meaning they are humanly-comfortable with.

Message 259 of 318 (675993) 10-18-2012 8:36 AM

Reply to: Message 254 by Phat 10-16-2012 2:10 PM

So I put it to you that - BLOP is hubbuluteral.

What do you think about that?

If it has no meaning then it can't go anywhere. It's like saying BLOP is hubbuluteral. It's meaningless incoherent nonsense.

How can one be a proponent of X unless they have an idea of what X is? I put it to you that: BLOP is hubbuluteral. I propose this. I am a proponent of this statement.

What is your response?

X either has a definition of it doesn't. Which is it? Is X more defined than BLOP?

How do you prove something has no definition?

It doesn't even make any sense to ask if X exists unless X is defined as something which can exist. So I ask you - Does BLOP exist?

If X is literally definitionless then asking if X exists is no different to asking if BLOP exists.

The two of you are labelling X=GOD and imbuing this supposedly definitionless and attributeless thing with all sorts of shared cultural characteristsics that by any conventional definition qualify it as a 'god'.

Only when implicitly defined in this way does talking about it make any sense whatsoever.

But when confronted with the flaws in this you both retreat back to the definitionless, attributeless concept and start speaking gibberish that is equivalent to discussing if BLOP exists or if BLOP is hubbuluteral.

Take away the shared cultural meaning implict in the terms "GOD" and "supernatural" and any conversation using these terms becomes utterly meaningless.

If the terms "GOD" and "supernatural" are literally definitionless then saying something like "GOD is supernatural" has no more meaning than saying "BLOP is hubbuluteral".

So I put it to you that - BLOP is hubbuluteral. What is your response?

Of course the reason we can talk about GOD in a thread that asks 'Can you Define God?" is because this term GOD you use has all sorts of godly connotations and meaning that are implicit regardless of how much you and jar insist otherwise.

The problem you have is that as soon as you take away this implicit meaning you literally might as well be talking about BLOP.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Message 260 of 318 (675999) 10-18-2012 9:56 AM

Reply to: Message 258 by Straggler 10-18-2012 8:10 AM

As I have said in the past and will gladly repeat yet again, I am human and live in this universe and can experience those natural things that exist within this universe.

The supernatural, if it exists, would be something other than natural.

But since I am human and I do live in the natural world, I see no way to identify anything that really was supernatural. About the best I could do is say "I see no natural way to explain that."

I am a theist, a Christian Theist. I worship the Christian God even though I understand it is not GOD but rather the best caricature, the best model, the best map I can find to be the guide for my ethical and social behavior.

You are kinda correct when you say "When you assert that 'GOD is supernatural' you have absolutely no idea at all what you mean do you?"

I don't and I have said that repeatedly. Both GOD and anything that is really supernatural will be something other than natural and as a human living in what we call the natural world, I really don't know what anything supernatural would be.

And that is the point of the nuance between GOD, God(s) and god(s).

Message 262 of 318 (676001) 10-18-2012 10:23 AM

Reply to: Message 261 by Straggler 10-18-2012 10:17 AM

GOD, if GOD exists will be supernatural.

Message 263 of 318 (676003) 10-18-2012 10:25 AM

Reply to: Message 262 by jar 10-18-2012 10:23 AM

How do you know this?

Message 264 of 318 (676005) 10-18-2012 10:42 AM

Reply to: Message 263 by Straggler 10-18-2012 10:25 AM

I do not KNOW that, I believe that.

Since I know no way that I could ever test, determine or define something that really is supernatural as long as I am simply a human living in the natural world, I see no way to ever know anything about the supernatural as long as I am simply a human living in the natural world.

Message 266 of 318 (676013) 10-18-2012 11:29 AM

Reply to: Message 264 by jar 10-18-2012 10:42 AM

It would help if you stopped asserting your irrational beliefs as if they were facts.

Message 269 of 318 (676018) 10-18-2012 11:46 AM

Reply to: Message 268 by Straggler 10-18-2012 11:41 AM

Summary: BLOP and BLOP alone IS hubuluteral. Because it too was put forth.

I propose X. Any conclusions, objections or definitions?

Message 270 of 318 (676020) 10-18-2012 11:50 AM

Reply to: Message 265 by Phat 10-18-2012 11:27 AM

But we have this one.

Put what out there? A combination of letters that literally has no conceptual definition or meaning? Something which is literally meaningless.

The final conclusion is that in the absence of any conceptual definition or meaning any use of the term GOD is incoherent and lacking in cogency. Stating belief in a non-concept is just absurd. The only sane response to such a thing is ignosticism.

However when people use this term they are usually implicitly referring to something that is a supernatural, conscious being that is responsible for the creation or overseeing of some aspect of reality. Something like the following dictionary definition:

quote:

---

1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force Related adj divine

---