Truth and Language

Val, I don't know what it means to say that a transcendental entity--something not of this physical reality--can have any causal relationship with this reality, not to mention creating it. It seems that the definition of "transendental God--not part of our physical reality--logically disqualifies that God from all interventions with the world. But if we identify the god as omnipotent, which is what believers usually do, then logic can logically--by definintion of omnipotency--be thrown out.

0 Replies

Re: Language, Truth, and logic
Baffman
It's not my transcendent god. It's the christian god, defined as pure spirit and immaterial. If god had some of our characteristics, he would be a physical entity, not a pure spirit. And any physical entity exists within our empirical experience: then we should be able to perceive god with our senses. Christian theology would never accept that.

0 Replies

Nobody:
I agree. But the notion I was giving of God was not my own - I have none. I was trying to define God as christian theology does.

0 Replies

Understood, Val.

0 Replies

Re: Language, Truth, and logic

val wrote:

Baffman
It's not my transcendent god. It's the christian god, defined as pure spirit and immaterial. If god had some of our characteristics, he would be a physical entity, not a pure spirit. And any physical entity exists within our empirical experience: then we should be able to perceive god with our senses. Christian theology would never accept that.

Yo Val,

But Christian theology absolutely accepts (even demands) that God can be experienced empirically, through the senses. "Christ" in the word Christian refers to the highest expression of the idea that God can be experienced empirically, because God became man without unbecoming God (I think I just made up a word, sorry about that). I think your conclusion is correct. We should be able to perceive God through our senses.

Baffman

0 Replies

val wrote:

Nobody:
I agree. But the notion I was giving of God was not my own - I have none. I was trying to define God as christian theology does.

Hey Val,

If you have no notion of God, you must be more of an agnostic or even acognostic. Which brings us back to A.J. Ayer who argued a position of ubelief he himself described as acognosticism. Acognosticism means that you believe that some propositions have no truth value; i.e. "God exists". They are neither true nor false. I don't personally agree with A.J. Ayer (to which category belongs the primary tenet of acognosticism?), but I think you might find his writings useful. Also, in regard to your statement which I have quoted above, why exactly do you not believe in God then?

Baffman

0 Replies

Disproving Zeus' existence?

JLNobody wrote:

Very good, Val. It is the anthropomorphism in literalist religion that is most untenable. The Greek gods were no more than superhumans. Zeus even fathered the half-human Hercules. Nothing transcendtal about procreation. Although sex is divine.
-edited

Why is anthropomorphism untenable? For centuries civilized and uncivilized people alike have believed in personal supernatural forces. Why don't you believe in Zeus? I certainly don't, but I don't think you've provided a tenable criticism of his existence and people who believed in him. I think Zeus is a fable, but you have offered no empirical evidence to disprove his existence.

0 Replies

Baffman, it just seems to me that based on my experience, no humans display any god-like properties. For that reason anthropomorphic gods make no sense to me. A.J.Ayer was a logical positivist, was he not? I don't recall. If he was, then "God exists" would have no status as a truth proposition, not because it is wrong, only because it is meaningless: it's not even wrong (I love that phrase).
I call myself an atheist,when asked, not because I believe in a no-God, or because I disbelieve in gods. I am an atheist only because the thesis is meaningless to me. But it is not just meaningless to me linguistically or logically. It is meaningless because it contradicts ALL of my experience. From my perspective, the proposition is not even worth a moment of my attention.

0 Replies

JLN,

(see my thread on Meditation with respect to "ALL" in your post above)

0 Replies

Baffman
What I tried to say was this:
If God is a non-physical entity - I mean, pure spirit - and it is transcendent, that would mean it would be far beyond our senses and reason. In this case, the problem is that entity would not be predicate.
If this is the christian notion of God, then the questions about the existence of god make no sense. What does exist or not exist? Because in this case god is only a name without any characteristics.
But, if you believe in a physical God, an immanent one, like Zeus, or Bacchus or Atena, then I cannot say the same question has no sense. Those entities have physical characteristics, can be predicated. So, if you ask me if I believe in the existence of an immanent god, I woould answer "no", because, then, the question made sense.

About Ayer. Twenty years ago I read "Language, Truth and Logic" and I remember that, not being a positivist, I found his conceptions about ethical and aesthetical propositions completely absurd.

0 Replies

Re: JLNobody

JLNobody wrote:

Baffman, it just seems to me that based on my experience, no humans display any god-like properties. For that reason anthropomorphic gods make no sense to me. A.J.Ayer was a logical positivist, was he not? I don't recall. If he was, then "God exists" would have no status as a truth proposition, not because it is wrong, only because it is meaningless: it's not even wrong (I love that phrase).
I call myself an atheist,when asked, not because I believe in a no-God, or because I disbelieve in gods. I am an atheist only because the thesis is meaningless to me. But it is not just meaningless to me linguistically or logically. It is meaningless because it contradicts ALL of my experience. From my perspective, the proposition is not even worth a moment of my attention.

If I read you (and A.J. Ayer) correctly, you are saying that "God exists" is a meaningless proposition. What I do not understand is how any proposition can be meaningless without being contradictory. Why is the thesis, "God exists" meaningless? I'm really not trying to sound like a know-it-all by citing A.J. Ayer, but I do not understand how the proposition "God exists," is not worth your time. If so, then the proposition "God does not exist" is also not worth your time. And the same, I think, follows for every truth proposition. How then is atheism more tenable to you than theism? You hinted that atheism is more in line with your experience. What did you mean by this?

0 Replies

Baffman, one can construct a meaningless sentence that is both grammatical and logical. For example, "Multicorns are preferrable to unicorns.
Both "God exists" and God does not exist" are not worth my time, just as "Multicorns are more numerous than unicorns" and Multicorns are not preferrable to unicorns."
I am not saying there is no God or that there is a God. And this is not because I am agnostic on the matter. I'm just saying that TO ME it's a non-issue. But for me, the meaninglessness of the God thesis is that, as I said, it contradicts ALL of my experience.
Atheism is not more tenable to me than is theism. I am an atheist not as a negative believer; I am an a-theist in the sense that I am not a believer. This label is applied to me by theists. I am thoroughly passive on the matter. I've got, what are to me, more meaningful fish to fry--as you can tell by my posts on mysticism. I should add that my comments on mysticism do not seem any more meaningful to people like Frank than does theism or active atheism to me. There's a saying in Mexico, Cada cabeza es un mundo (Every head a world). That seems to apply here.

0 Replies

Re: JLNobody
Baffman
The problem with the proposition "God exists" - or "God does not exist" - is the fact that we are talking about an entity without predicates. If I say "Dragons exist", you understand what "dragons" means. There are books that describe dragons, paintings or pictures that give a visual image of dragons. So you can say about dragons that they fly, they spit fire, they are huge, they are reptiles.
So, if you say "dragons exist" your proposition is meaningful. Wrong - because dragons do not exist - but meaningful.

But when you say "God exists", what predicates has that entity you claim be existing? Is god a man? Is he large, tall, old? White, black, green? Does he speak? Since christian god is not an immanent god, like greeks gods, you can't characterize it.
And any proposition with a subject that has no predicates, has no meaning. What is that entity you call god? What are his characteristics? Do you see the problem? To claim the existence of God, or deny it, makes no sense because all we have is a word, three letters. You could ask, does "xtd" exist? Well, the word, the letters, exist. But they dont correspond to a substance.

0 Replies

Val, theists might answer that God's predicates are the (vacuous) omnicience, omnipotence and omnipresence.

0 Replies

Since GOD is such a pathetic conception in most people's mind perhaps, IF we ever get rid of it, we will be able to embark on the next stage of some form of mental evolution. GOD is such a useless concept, a leech that just won't let go; a psychic tumour which negates any comprehension of divinity, its influx and and the power of its own creations perhaps of a kind we have not yet experienced.

0 Replies

Re: Truth and Language

Ibn_kumuna wrote:

TRUTH IS WHATEVER THE VICTOR DECIDES AND RECORDS IT TO BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF FUTURE PROGENY

EACH NEW GENERATION MAY OF COURSE ERASE SUCH KNOWLEDGE AND RESTATE WHAT IT DETERMINES TO BE TRUTH

0 Replies

Quote:

EACH NEW GENERATION MAY OF COURSE ERASE SUCH KNOWLEDGE AND RESTATE WHAT IT DETERMINES TO BE TRUTH

All of it or just some of it?

0 Replies

Re: JLNobody
JLNobody,

"And any proposition with a subject that has no predicates, has no meaning. What is that entity you call god? What are his characteristics? Do you see the problem? To claim the existence of God, or deny it, makes no sense because all we have is a word, three letters. You could ask, does "xtd" exist? Well, the word, the letters, exist. But they dont correspond to a substance."

Hey, could you clarify what a proposition with a subject but without a predicate would be? Also, if to claim or deny God's existence makes no sense, why have you opted for unbelief since both, as you say, are nonsensical? This makes your position look irrational to me. Also, regarding A.J. Ayer one more time and then I'll drop it: His ideas really seem similar to your position so you might find his work helpful for solidifying it. Or, you may be dissatisfied with Ayer's arguments and turn to the light side (jk).

Baffman

0 Replies

Baffman, you say I have opted for unbelief. Please re-read my statement:
I call myself an atheist,when asked, not because I believe in a no-God, or because I disbelieve in gods. I am an atheist only because the thesis is meaningless to me. But it is not just meaningless to me linguistically or logically. It is meaningless because it contradicts ALL of my experience. From my perspective, the proposition is not even worth a moment of my attention.

0 Replies

Re: JLNobody
Baffman
The text you quote is mine, so I think I must answer to you.A proposition with a subject that has no attribute - as a quality - has no meaning. You say: God exists. But existence is not an attribute, you see, first you must characterize the entity you claim to exist.

About atheism:you are right. I am not an atheist. Nor a theist. The question makes no sense to me.

0 Replies

Truth and Language

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know