Truth and Language

Good points well stated.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Baffman, to me a personal uncaused cause of the universe is totally meaningless, but this does not, as far as I'm concerned, leave me with the meaningless notion of a natural universe without a beginning. To me, the notion of natural is meaningful only in contrast to the notion of supernatural. The latter is spurious making the former unnecessary. And the notions of BEGINNING and END are far too artificial and epistemologically provincial for application to something so grand and all-inclusive as the universe or cosmos (which, however, may also be a very artificial notion--er, as are all notions). To me, the question of the beginning of the universe is a non-problem. But what about the notion of the changing universe, about a cosmos that merely changed with the Big Bang?

Did you read my post about an infinite series? You are proposing that the universe has always existed, which is not possible. BEGINNING and END are very real notions compared to your illogical infinite series. All you are doing is SAYING that this is a non-issue for you. Just because you can say it doesn't mean it's true. An infinite series of causes is illogical; a finite series begun by an infinite being is not. That's my point

Baffman

0 Replies

Frank,

Bravo. I should not have stated it in those words, shoud I?

"Are you suggesting that the existence of a God...is more logical (and therefore more likely to be the REALITY) than suggesting that no gods exist?"

Hmmmmm. Yes, but you and Val seem convinced that "no god exists" and "God does not exist" are somehow different. You keep making the former statement when I make the latter. You believe one to be meaningless and the other to be meaningful, is that it? I don't understand. Just because something is meaningless to YOU or a lot of other people, that doesn't make it meaningless--because you don't get to decide what is true (and neither do I). You may disagree with me on this point, but only if I am correct. That is why I hold to the correspondence view of truth. The whole meaningless/meaningful thing is totally bogus. I think you're using it as an alternative category to try and avoid the correspondence view. Why do this when correspondence is so easily and clearly deduced (ALL views of truth imply correspondence; since they all do, why not use just the one)? Why use meaningless/meaningful, especially when so many good thinkers, like Plato, Kant, Hume, etc. didn't use them?

Also, I stated before that whatever exists must have a cause because something cannot come from nothing. I guess I should have said, "whatever begins to exist has a cause." This is simply a reflection of everything we know about the natural world, the physical universe. Otherwise, you are correct. But I do not propose that a god (a finite anthropomorphic god) exists. A personal infinite God fits the uncaused cause bracket whereas "nothing" or "a god" do not.

Baffman

0 Replies

baffman wrote:

Frank,

Bravo. I should not have stated it in those words, shoud I?

"Are you suggesting that the existence of a God...is more logical (and therefore more likely to be the REALITY) than suggesting that no gods exist?"

Hmmmmm. Yes, but you and Val seem convinced that "no god exists" and "God does not exist" are somehow different.

I do not know what you are talking about here.

If no gods exist...then by extention, God (whatever you mean by that) does not exist.

Quote:

You keep making the former statement when I make the latter.

I'm an agnostic on the question of whether a God (or gods) exist(s)...so I do not "keep making" the former statement.

Quote:

You believe one to be meaningless and the other to be meaningful, is that it? I don't understand. Just because something is meaningless to YOU or a lot of other people, that doesn't make it meaningless--because you don't get to decide what is true (and neither do I). You may disagree with me on this point, but only if I am correct. That is why I hold to the correspondence view of truth. The whole meaningless/meaningful thing is totally bogus. I think you're using it as an alternative category to try and avoid the correspondence view. Why do this when correspondence is so easily and clearly deduced (ALL views of truth imply correspondence; since they all do, why not use just the one)? Why use meaningless/meaningful, especially when so many good thinkers, like Plato, Kant, Hume, etc. didn't use them?

What in the hell are you raving about?

Can't you write a simple declarative sentence that actually says something rather than hinting around at things?

What is your point?

Quote:

Also, I stated before that whatever exists must have a cause because something cannot come from nothing. I guess I should have said, "whatever begins to exist has a cause." This is simply a reflection of everything we know about the natural world, the physical universe. Otherwise, you are correct. But I do not propose that a god (a finite anthropomorphic god) exists. A personal infinite God fits the uncaused cause bracket whereas "nothing" or "a god" do not.

Once again...I am unable to follow what in hell you are trying to say. I would suggest you stop trying to say things...and actually say them.

I'd really like to discuss this with you....but you are incomprehensible.

SUGGESTION (if you are intersted in a discussion):

Pick one item out...one only...and state your position on it as concisely as possible. Think before you post it so that you do not have to explain later what you actually meant to say.

Let's deal with that one point until we reach a concensus. Then we will move on to the next single thing.

0 Replies

Baffman, you're right. Just because I SAY something is so doesn't make it so. I was just giving an opinion, which is, of course, what speculative conversation is about.
You say:

"Did you read my post about an infinite series? You are proposing that the universe has always existed, which is not possible. BEGINNING and END are very real notions compared to your illogical infinite series. All you are doing is SAYING that this is a non-issue for you. Just because you can say it doesn't mean it's true. An infinite series of causes is illogical; a finite series begun by an infinite being is not. That's my point"

I probably read that post, but I don't remember--age. I am not really saying that the universe has always existed. I can't know that, of course. I'm just saying that the notions of "beginning" and "end", while "very real notions", as you note, are too "local", "human" conditioned by our neurological and cultural limitations to deal with something SO vast as the universe. I can't really understand the concept of "universe" as something which has boundaries, as a "thing" of sorts.
You say that an infinite series of causes is illogical, but that a finite series begun by an infinite being is not. I would say that an infinite being is not so just because you SAY it is so. If you can say that then I can say with equal warrant (or equal lack of warrant) that the universe is an uncaused infinite process.

0 Replies

Sorry, Baffman, but I don't understand why you say I am convinced that "no god exists" is different from "God does not exist".
I never said God does not exist. I said that the question of God, in my opinion, does not make any sense, since you cannot define God.

I see no difference in the two statements about the existence of God. They also make no sense.
If I say "God exists" and I cannot describe it, I am talking about a word, and nothing else. The same goes when I say "God does not exist".
Existence is not a predicate.

About the question of meaning. Of course that what has no meaning to me, can be meaningful to others. I only express my own opinion, and discuss arguments. That's what we are suposed to do in a philosophical forum.

0 Replies

Val, I agree with the subtance of your last post. But I do not understand your contention that "existence is not a predicate." What about You (subject) exist (predicate)? What I would conclude from your general statement is that the predicate (exists) has no subject (God). God IS a subject in a purely grammatical sense, but it is a non-empirical subject.
I like your explanation of the meaninglessness of the God concept on the grounds that it is undefined, only a word, or what I would call a vacant category.

0 Replies

Nobody

I use "predicate" as attribute. To be a mammal is an attribute of a dog. To have one only horn is an attribute of an unicorn.
Existence is not an attribute. Unicorns can exist or not, but they must have one only horn.
An imaginary dollar has the same attributes of a real dollar (this is an adaptation from a Kant's example).

So I am using predicate in a logical sense (like, X is Y and Z). When I say "X is" I don't mean "X exists", I only mean "X has the following properties".
This problem, as you know, has been discussed since Anselm of Canterbury, with his "ontological proof of God", denied by Aquinas and Kant, and accepted by Descartes and Leibniz.

0 Replies

Val, sorry I missed that possibility, predicate as an attribute of a subject. I've always thought of the predicate as what the subject does. In the case of an attribute like redness. The apple (subject) IS red. Properties of a subject pertain to verbs IS or HAS. It has this or that, or is this or that.
But I should not argue about grammatical matters. I only know what sounds right or wrong. She are going to the store is wrong. That's all I know.

0 Replies

Found this accidently looking for the origin of a sentence. What a surprise!

"What I tell you three times is true." (Lewis Carroll) Might this formula - Or a more sophisticates version of it actually determine what we believe to be true?
Below is a short sample of the essay ""What I tell you three times is true." (Lewis Carroll) Might this formula - Or a more sophisticates version of it actually determine what we believe to be true?".
...
39;Our sense perception enables us to appreciate the world.'[2] What is out there in the world, we see, smell, touch, taste, and hear with our senses, and the perception of what we see, smell, touch, taste, and hear is reasonably objective. When referring to the formula "What I tell you three times is true," one can see how empirical knowledge relates. If someone tells us something three times, but all five of our senses are against what we are being told, we have a problem. In this case we see how the senses that allow appreciate the world, are being challenged by a formula. This also introduces the question of whether we should trust our senses, as we know that they can deceive us.
We often learn through our past experiences. Our past experience can often condition us to expect things. For example, when touching something very hot, like an oven hob, it is a natural reflex to quickly remove the hand from the hot surface, after doing this once, one knows that it is painful, and not a good idea to touch a hot hob. When relating the formula to past experience, one can see an example of how the formula may not determine what we believe to be true. For example, if a person were to say 'touch the hob, it is freezing' three times, we would not be able to, because our past experience to too strong, and we see how empirical knowledge has more power that the source of language in this case.

Belief has great influence on the truth. If you believe in something you are more likely to see the truth in it, whereas a person that does not believe in something may fail to see the truth in that something.

I had no idea that Lewis Carroll coined this expression.

0 Replies

JLNobody,

Thank you, again, for insightful comments. You most recentl responded to my question about the infinite series thus:

"Did you read my post about an infinite series? You are proposing that the universe has always existed, which is not possible. BEGINNING and END are very real notions compared to your illogical infinite series. All you are doing is SAYING that this is a non-issue for you. Just because you can say it doesn't mean it's true. An infinite series of causes is illogical; a finite series begun by an infinite being is not. That's my point"

I probably read that post, but I don't remember--age. I am not really saying that the universe has always existed. I can't know that, of course. I'm just saying that the notions of "beginning" and "end", while "very real notions", as you note, are too "local", "human" conditioned by our neurological and cultural limitations to deal with something SO vast as the universe. I can't really understand the concept of "universe" as something which has boundaries, as a "thing" of sorts.
You say that an infinite series of causes is illogical, but that a finite series begun by an infinite being is not. I would say that an infinite being is not so just because you SAY it is so. If you can say that then I can say with equal warrant (or equal lack of warrant) that the universe is an uncaused infinite process.

You're right. God does not exist just because I say so and visa-versa. That is why I propose a correspondence view of truth. Either God exists or he does not, regardless of our wanting him to exist. I think we are in agreement on this point, no? What we appear to disagree on is, whether or not we can have any knowledge about God. Am I correct in forming the debate in these terms? If I am, it seems we are answering this last question oppositely. I believe there is an answer and you (I think) do not believe there is an answer. What I am trying to communicate, albeit uinsuccessfully up to this point, is that there is only ONE possible answer to the question, "Can we know anything about God?" Yes or no, the answer is a resounding yes.

Why are you so skeptical about the terms, "beginning" and "end"? I really don't understand how one can believe in an infinite series of causes in the natural world. Yes, I propose that God (an uncaused cause, actual infinity) began the series of causes. But this is different from your proposition because God is not part of the phyiscal universe. He created it outside of himself (contrary Panentheism/Pantheism).

Baffman

0 Replies

baffman wrote:

Either God exists or he does not, regardless of our wanting him to exist.

Let us suppose that is so.

Quote:

What we appear to disagree on is, whether or not we can have any knowledge about God.

Okay...that is not entirely correct...but let us assume that it is for the sake of further discussion.

Quote:

Am I correct in forming the debate in these terms? If I am, it seems we are answering this last question oppositely. I believe there is an answer and you (I think) do not believe there is an answer.

I could not care less what either of you "believe." You are certainly free to "believe" (which is to say, guess) either way.

Quote:

What I am trying to communicate, albeit uinsuccessfully up to this point, is that there is only ONE possible answer to the question, "Can we know anything about God?" Yes or no, the answer is a resounding yes.

If that is what you are trying to communicate...I understand why you have been unsuccessful. You are wrong. That is not the only ONE possible answer to that question. If it were, by the way, it wouldn't really be a question.

Quote:

Why are you so skeptical about the terms, "beginning" and "end"? I really don't understand how one can believe in an infinite series of causes in the natural world. Yes, I propose that God (an uncaused cause, actual infinity) began the series of causes. But this is different from your proposition because God is not part of the phyiscal universe. He created it outside of himself (contrary Panentheism/Pantheism).Baffman

Well...this is really putting the horse before the cart.

You seem to be insisting that you KNOW something about a god.

What is it that you KNOW?

0 Replies

Truth is not a property of language because language has not been able to express abstract ideas as efficiently as concrete items?

0 Replies

doyou

Language has not been able to express abstract ideas?
Do you mean that there are ideas external and independent from language?

0 Replies

Val, are abstract ideas independent and external from language ?

0 Replies

doyou, I do think that we have abstract thoughts that we cannot put into words. I know I do. But we must remember that ALL words and ALL thoughts are abstractions. All language is abstraction, i.e., representations of experience or representations of imagined experiences. Mathematics and logical symbol systems are other forms of language but, I guess, either MORE abstract than language or merely other types of abstractions.
My computer hard drive broke down, so I've been out of it for a few days. The frustration of that led me to some unspeakable abstractions.

0 Replies

Doyouknowhim

That was my question.
But if you want my answer, it's "no".

0 Replies

Frank Apisa,

"What I am trying to communicate, albeit uinsuccessfully up to this point, is that there is only ONE possible answer to the question, 'Can we know anything about God?' Yes or no, the answer is a resounding yes."

The question above cannot reasonably illicit even two answers. Your proposition that there are many answers to the question, "Can we know anything about God?" is false. If you answer no, you're fooling yourself because you'd be assuming knowledge about God. Obviously, a yes answer to the question means the same thing. Either way, you must agree that knowledge about God is possible. But doubtless you have another radically empirical generalization to make at this point which you feel destroys or obscures my position. Fire away.

Baffman

0 Replies

baffman

I agree that to the question "can we know anything about God" it is only possible one answer. Because if you say "no", you are saying"we cannot know anything about God", and this a contradiction. If you mencion God is because you already know something about him.

But there is another possible reply to your question:
"The question itself doesn't make any sense".

0 Replies

baffman wrote:

Frank Apisa,

"What I am trying to communicate, albeit uinsuccessfully up to this point, is that there is only ONE possible answer to the question, 'Can we know anything about God?' Yes or no, the answer is a resounding yes."

The question above cannot reasonably illicit even two answers. Your proposition that there are many answers to the question, "Can we know anything about God?" is false.

I never said there are "many answers" to that question. I simply said "...there is not only ONE possible answer to that question."

Please do not misquote or misrepresent what I say...just so you can charge me with making a false statement.

Quote:

If you answer no, you're fooling yourself because you'd be assuming knowledge about God.

Your question does not go to whether or not we can ASSUME knowledge about God...but rather whether or not we can KNOW anything about god.

So it does not matter that one is ASSUMING something.

If your question had been, "Can we assume anything about possible gods?" ... I would agree. The only logical, reasonable answer would be YES. But that is not your question. Your question was: "Can we know anything about God?"

There are TWO possible answers to that question, Baffman...YES...or...NO. (By the way...I assume you mean logical and reasonable answers. Obviously, a person could simply answer illogically and unreasonably either way.)

(ASIDE: And if one wanted, as you seem to be doing, to play a game that there is but one possible answer, it is easier to defend that the more likely possible answer is NO...rather than YES. I'll talk about that presently. I enjoy these games, by the way, Baffman...so I am not faulting you on this...merely making the observation.)

Let's take the two possible scenarios (there is a God; there is no God) and look at them:

First scenario: THERE IS A GOD...Can we know anything about God?

Possibly YES; possibly NO.

If the God is willing to let us know about It...we can. The answer will be YES.

If the God has decided that we cannot know anything about It...we cannot. The answer will be NO.

In either case, it appears we will be making an assumption if we guess one way or the other...but IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT GOD (if a God exists)...AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE CANNOT KNOW. It all depends on the God.

Second scenario: THERE IS NO GOD...Can we know anything about God?

While it is theoretically possible to KNOW there is a God (should one exist)...it is NOT theoretically possible to KNOW there are no gods even if none exist. A God...should one exist...could chose to reveal Itself. There is no way a no-God could reveal itself.

If there are no gods...that will always be an unknown.

If there is no God...the only (logical) answer to the question "Can we know anything about God?"...is NO.

So as you see...the possible correct and logical answers to the question...are two to one in favor of a NO answer.

0 Replies

Truth and Language

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know