Is the word God meaningless?

Post Reply New Topic

Below is an e-mail I sent to someone who thinks the word "God" is meaningless. His account bounced my e-mail.

Anyway, I'm not sure about the argument's validity. I'd like to see your input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I was wondering about your argument from noncognitivism from
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/at ... tivism/#L8.

I sought an attempted refutation of it because I want exposure to both
sides of the argument before forming a conclusion. As such, I asked for
an apologist’s response to your argument, which is at the bottom of this
e-mail.

Anyway, I have a few requests.
First, I’d like you to explain the difference between secondary and
primary attributes, perhaps by giving an example of a primary
attribute that *could not* also be considered a secondary attribute.
It seems to me that you can only define something’s metaphysical
nature through the use of secondary attributes. Basically, I don’t
see what the difference is between secondary and primary attributes
as if all primary attributes could also be considered secondary
attributes.
Second, I’d like your response to the apologist’s counter-argument.
Third, I’d like to know how you can argue against the existence of
God “for the sake of argument,” as you wrote in the article. To even
argue against something for argument’s sake or hold it as false or
nonexistent necessarily requires that the thing in question have a
meaning to be argued against (Though there may be someway to make the
arguments coherent).
(BTW, I’m a strong atheist myself. I’m just not sure this particular
argument works, though I’m thinking of using it myself if it does.)

As for the argument itself, I agree with some of its points. The
argument seems to make some sense, but I suspect there might be
something wrong with it, though I could be wrong.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.
_____________________________________________________________________
(Apologist's rebuttal is below)
_____________________________________________________________________

If so, it's quite easy! They're right! The term "God" by itself is
meaningless. However, let's consider it this way. Let's suppose you said
the
term "Man." Alright. Now we all know what a man is (Or should), but we
might
want some more content. Now let's suppose you said "Lives in North
America."

Okay. More content to it.

"Lives in the South."

There's more.

"Lives in North Carolina"

Narrowing it down.

"Lives in Charlotte."

Getting closer.

"Is a Southern Evangelical Student."

There's a bit closer.

"Is roommates with Rayado of Tweb."

Ah. Well you could narrow it down further, but it's obvious I'm the one
being talked about.

Words without content provided are meaningless. Even several fellow
apologists have complained that God has become a vacuous word because we
so
often devoid it of content. People say "I believe in God" and add no
content
to it. They could mean the higher power of Star Wars, they could mean
the
Mind at Large of the New Age movement, or they could mean Allah, or they
could mean the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who revealed himself in
Christ. We don't know.

Of course, the one who gives the language meaning is the one who makes
the
claim. You know me so if I say I believe in God, you can quite easily
provide content to that. If you meet a stranger, it's not quite so easy.
(Exceptions. If they're dressed in Muslim garb for instance, you might
guess
Allah.)

That to me seems to be the height of it. The only way strong atheism can
say
it's always meaningless is if they presuppose that it is meaningless to
begin with. It's simply begging the question.

[b]

As I see it, "God" with a capital G, would generally refer to the highest god, the creator of everything, or the biggest god in the present culture.
Kind of like when you say "The President", most people think of the president of the US, or maybe the one in their company if uttered in that context, while there may be hundreds or thousands of presidents.
Still it's vague, because they don't even give a name.
Is it President Bush, President Washington or President Howard of Honest Howard's used cars?

I'm an atheist, but I don't think it's meaningless; if I don't believe it's literally true, I don't doubt the personal meaning that is subjectively invested into the concept.

God, like a number of other words, requires context to have a proper meaning but is still a word regardless. Cleric, similarly could be considered an ambiguous word but it can't be denied meaning.
I don't see the relevance of the argument as even if it were proved to have no meaning, it wouldn't disprove religion itself, evolution has already done that, it's now down to them to prove their validity (Old books are hardly proof, many things were believed in the days they were created but not many were acurate).