Quote:Where there is consensus of purpose, there will be consensus of definition.
fresco--
You lost me on this sentence. Specifically, I don't know what you mean by "consensus of purpose".
(I do like the line from that movie, though.)
And I appreciate your encouraging words.
fresco wrote:Brandon,
I have not said your assertions are "incorrect". I have merely said that "correctness" is a matter of negotiation and I have supported my view IN THE NORMAL MANNER by suggesting references to you which might ring a few bells. Your belief in "an objective reality" precludes your consideration of such a position. Unless you are prepared to follow up my references or experiment on your own with the concept of a "social reality", you will never understand the point.
Either there is a God or there is not. It's not at all a matter of negotiation. What we the inhabitants of the universe need to do is look around and see if there is evidence of His existence or not. The normal manner of debate is to state your argument, not to refer your opponent to someone else. If your argument were strong, you could counter my arguments with ones of your own.
Brandon,
As neologist implied, there is no "test" for an ineffable deity.
If a theist makes a claim for an entity called "God" one of whose properties/requirements is dependent on "faith" rather than "physical evidence" then there is no way of "testing for existence" in the conventional manner. Instead, we have to consider whether The "God concept" is an "explanatory requirement" for the general workings of the world as we perceive it. This is in fact not much different from some explanatory concepts in physics like "gravitational field" which have "reality" only in terms of the indirect evidence of the behaviour of material objects. Theists might perhaps argue for such "indirect evidence" from the behaviour of humans like "morality", and atheists might counter with an explanation in terms of "an altruism gene" effective in natural selection for the species homo sapiens with a long maturity period. In other words "significance of evidence" is subject to negotiation and that can be equally the case in "science", especially when the mechanisms of perception are themselves the subject of study.
echi
The distinguished linguist Whorf had a previous job as an insurance inspector. When investigating an explosion at a gasoline depot he found that a worker had tossed a cigarette butt into an area labelled "Empty Drums". Of course the definition of "empty" for company purposes meant "containing no liquid" even though they still contained flammable vapour.
By explapolation it follows that all concepts are prone to such "functional modification". American footballers use a non-spherical "ball" which works perfectly for all consenting parties. Let a "naive" American go into an English sports shop however and ask for a "football" and he might be disappointed. Similarly in the Dundee sketch the definition of "knife" was context specific. It could not be separated from the mutual "dominance purposes" of the respondents.
Note that these simplistic exmples are about "physical objects" and can be easily resolved ...but consider the situation with abstract concepts such as "justice" "freedom" or "God". Unless respondents have the same purposes in mind (Wittgenstein called this "same language game") then arguments can and do proceed non-productively.
I hope this explains the concept of "consensus of purpose".
Brandon9000 wrote:Either there is a God or there is not. It's not at all a matter of negotiation. What we the inhabitants of the universe need to do is look around and see if there is evidence of His existence or not.
Brandon,
One philosopher, Jacob Boehme, defined God as "the eternal abyss". Could a concept such as that be tested in any scientific way?
fresco wrote:Brandon,
As neologist implied, there is no "test" for an ineffable deity.
If a theist makes a claim for an entity called "God" one of whose properties/requirements is dependent on "faith" rather than "physical evidence" then there is no way of "testing for existence" in the conventional manner. Instead, we have to consider whether The "God concept" is an "explanatory requirement" for the general workings of the world as we perceive it. This is in fact not much different from some explanatory concepts in physics like "gravitational field" which have "reality" only in terms of the indirect evidence of the behaviour of material objects. Theists might perhaps argue for such "indirect evidence" from the behaviour of humans like "morality", and atheists might counter with an explanation in terms of "an altruism gene" effective in natural selection for the species homo sapiens with a long maturity period. In other words "significance of evidence" is subject to negotiation and that can be equally the case in "science", especially when the mechanisms of perception are themselves the subject of study.
I never meant to say that one could perform a test to determine if there is a God. I think I've been saying that if one believes in something without evidence that it exists, or at least an analytical argument, then one will simply be right or wrong randomly.
If you do believe that the existence of a God is an "'explanatory requirement' for the general workings of the world," then state your argument for that proposition.
As to the existence of a gravitational field, it is nothing but a definition. It's simply the name for an area in which matter experiences a gravitational force, and not a conclusion at all.
fresco,
In what sense are you using the word 'ineffable'?
wandeljw wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Either there is a God or there is not. It's not at all a matter of negotiation. What we the inhabitants of the universe need to do is look around and see if there is evidence of His existence or not.
Brandon,
One philosopher, Jacob Boehme, defined God as "the eternal abyss". Could a concept such as that be tested in any scientific way?
If one gave a definition that was understandable and clear, one could then look around for evidence that it existed. If one couldn't find much evidence that it existed, then a belief that it did would be logically unjustified. This ain't rocket science. Please stop coming to me over and over with elementary misunderstandings of things I've already stated clearly.
Og steps outta the cave, hungry, sees rabbit, sees rock, picks up rock, hurls rock toward rabbit, rock strikes rabbit squarely, rabbit falls over dead, Og gathers up rabbit, has dinner. Og knew what to do, how to do it, and did that; Og is mighty. Og cannot make bright light fly through air with frightening noises, strike tree, make fire; Og sees that does happen, Og reasons someone has to have been behind it, someone unimagineably mightier than Og, Og concludes there must be gods, and that a god did that. Stomach full, mind at ease, Og settles down by the fire that warms the cave through the benevolence of the gods, and sleeps peacefully.
neologist,
"Ineffable"..."not expressable in words"...."experiential". (Waneljw's citation comes close).
Brandon,
As an atheist I have no requirement for a deity as an explanatory concept but I cannot argue logically with a theist about this on a "right"/ "wrong" basis because our conceptions of "the world" may be very different.
"Right" and "wrong" belong to the realm of successful prediction NOT matters of belief. However they may apply to the social outcomes associated with holding a belief. Thus as an atheist I might argue that theism is incorrect/pernicious because of its proven associations with strife. Essentially I am predicting a practical outcome of the continuance of theism.
Brandon9000 wrote:Please stop coming to me over and over with elementary misunderstandings of things I've already stated clearly.
There is an elementary misunderstanding on your part, brandon. I have
not come to you "over and over" for anything at all.
fresco;
Just wondering as one definition refers to the idea of unutterable.
I submit your 'prediction of practical outcome for the continuance of theism' might be flawed.
timber;
Thank you for your defintion: "creator of lightning." I'll keep that in mind next time I cuss in a storm.
Yer weccum, Neo, here's wishing all in your cave sleep peacefully, warm and with full bellies, and that in the the coming year the gods smile upon you and yours, giving you many rabbits and allowing that your hearth continues to warm your cave and all within it.
Always a pleasure to share a bunny with ya, timber. And, thanks.
And careful; no cussin.
Agreed, but . . .
After this, there will still be a God:
Denis Diderot wrote:Mankind will never truly be free until the last king has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
fresco wrote:neologist,
"Ineffable"..."not expressable in words"...."experiential". (Waneljw's citation comes close).
Brandon,
As an atheist I have no requirement for a deity as an explanatory concept but I cannot argue logically with a theist about this on a "right"/ "wrong" basis because our conceptions of "the world" may be very different.
"Right" and "wrong" belong to the realm of successful prediction NOT matters of belief. However they may apply to the social outcomes associated with holding a belief. Thus as an atheist I might argue that theism is incorrect/pernicious because of its proven associations with strife. Essentially I am predicting a practical outcome of the continuance of theism.
Anyone, including you, who goes around believing facts about the universe, such as the existence of God, without evidence or logic to support them will be correct only randomly. Your belief that there is a God is based on a type of thinking which demonstrably does not produce correct results.
Brandon,
Since I have just stated I am an atheist this does not seem to apply to me.
However if I
were a believer I would probably be unimpressed by your concept of "correct results" and simply reply with a smile "wait and see" !
Unless you have anything further to add other than restating your belief in "objective evidence" and your reliance on "binary logic"
ad nauseam I cannot see much point in a further reply to you. If on the other hand you wish to pursue matters beyond your entrenched position I will be happy to reciprocate.
fresco wrote:Brandon,
Since I have just stated I am an atheist this does not seem to apply to me.
However if I
were a believer I would probably be unimpressed by your concept of "correct results" and simply reply with a smile "wait and see" !
Unless you have anything further to add other than restating your belief in "objective evidence" and your reliance on "binary logic"
ad nauseam I cannot see much point in a further reply to you. If on the other hand you wish to pursue matters beyond your entrenched position I will be happy to reciprocate.
Your position seems to be that belief in God is not the province of evidence and logic, and that belief in God is not a position that is either right or wrong. That is false. In fact it is binary. Once the word "God" is sufficiently well defined, then either there is one or there isn't.
Actually, I don't think God's existence or non-existence depends on whether or not we can articulate his nature, but I appreciate your point, Brandon.
God either exists or does not exist. Our speculations are irrelevant.
For me to demonstrate his existence would require an ability to call upon the supernatural. I don't have it.
I am able to experience his existence. But that is not part of this topic, is it?
