|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can You define God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I think I understand it but also disagree totally with your assertion.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
We have three "God" topics in high rotation, chiefly because I like talking about such things. I have to discipline myself, however, and sort the data as to which topic should be addressed by what specific criteria.
jar writes: That's expected and acceptable. I think I understand it but also disagree totally with your assertion. 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.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
When you assert that 'GOD is supernatural' you have absolutely no idea at all what you mean do you?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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 do you think about that?
Phat writes: If concept X is devoid of attribute and definition, (in which case the topic would be Can You Define X) we then have a discussion which can go several ways. If it has no meaning then it can't go anywhere. It's like saying BLOP is hubbuluteral. It's meaningless incoherent nonsense.
Phat writes: If discussing it with a proponent of X... 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?
Phat writes: ...one who wishes X to have a definition X either has a definition of it doesn't. Which is it? Is X more defined than BLOP?
Phat writes: ...;we can prove to them that X has no definition How do you prove something has no definition?
Phat writes: ..but even by discussing X, we have given it an attribute...namely a proposal for X to exist or a proposal for x not to exist. 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?
Phat writes: Thus, IF X exists is a valid premise, no? If X is literally definitionless then asking if X exists is no different to asking if BLOP exists.
Phat writes: Additionally, you may see no point to discussing concept X, yet jar or I may in fact see a point to discussing it. 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.
Phat writes: Further, since all three of us are in this discussion, as well as others, the idea that it is moot to discuss GOD seems irrelevant. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You are getting closer, maybe almost there.
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).Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Is GOD supernatural?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, let me repeat.
GOD, if GOD exists will be supernatural.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: GOD, if GOD exists will be supernatural. How do you know this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And I've answered that before but I'm willing to try again.
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.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
straggler writes: Start a thread on it.
So I put it to you that - BLOP is hubbuluteral. What is your response? Straggler writes: The reason we can talk about GOD,BLOP,or X is that one of us put it out there.
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. So does this mean that the Final answer is that NO, we cannot define GOD?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Lots of other people believe that their god is genuinely supernatural too.
jar writes: I do not KNOW that, I believe that. It would help if you stopped asserting your irrational beliefs as if they were facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry you are still having problems with comprehension.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Summary: GOD, and GOD alone, IS supernatural. Because jar says so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Summary: GOD, and GOD alone, IS supernatural. Because jar says so. Summary: BLOP and BLOP alone IS hubuluteral. Because it too was put forth. I propose X. Any conclusions, objections or definitions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Phat writes: Start a thread on it. But we have this one.
Phat writes: The reason we can talk about GOD,BLOP,or X is that one of us put it out there. Put what out there? A combination of letters that literally has no conceptual definition or meaning? Something which is literally meaningless.
Phat writes: So does this mean that the Final answer is that NO, we cannot define GOD? 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:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024