Is the word "God" meaningless

Post Reply New Topic

I'd like some feedback on the following article: http://www.strongatheism.net/library/at ... tivism/#L8.

Excuse me, wrong place for this.

Moved it to where appropriate.

to me it is

Couldn't The Argument From Non-Cognitivism also apply to things Atheists tend to take for granted like the Universe or the Mind? Why the double standard when it comes to God?

No, because those things have their primary attributes defined. The argument says in a nutshell that theists have only defined god in terms of what it does, can do, or how it relates with the world, not in terms of what god is (i.e., primary attributes); until the primary attributes are defined, we cannot meaningfully ascribe non-primary attributes to god.

To do so, the argument goes, is like saying "hope" tastes bad. In this case, "hope" doesn't taste like anything because its nature limits the kind of attributes it can have.

While I remain open to a refutation of this argument, the more I hear people attempt to refute this argument, the stronger it seems to be.

I could just as easily claim that God is a thing that has defined primary attributes, but I'm sure you wouldn't except that kind of assertive vacuous answer either.

What are the primary attributes of the Universe?

What are the primary attributes of the Mind?

You seem rather dismissive of my response because you think that I did not understand the argument. I did understand the argument and was attempting to discuss potential weaknesses in it. One potential weakness I found was that 'God' is not uncommon in its vagueness. We use plenty of other equally vague terms without debate or issue being raised.

Another weakness in the argument seems to be the reliance on the ability to define something in terms of its ideal Platonic form or essence. I don't really think that it is possible to define something in this way, except arbitrarily through our use of categorical language. I think defining God is a process similar to trying to define a word from a foreign language for which there is no equivalent in your own. You can never quite hit the nail on the head, but that doesn't mean the translation is unintelligible or useless.

You didn't understand the argument. The mind, like the universe, consists of matter and energy.
However, even if we assume for argument's sake that these things are nonphysical, it doesn't refute the argument because we perceive them directly. I know what colors are, for example, and how to distinguish between them because I see them myself and can imagine them. Precisely because I can do this, I know it doesn't make sense to claim a color smells bad or that a color is hard, that a color breathes, that a color hurts, that a color is emotion, and so on.

Also, it is one thing to claim a perfect conception of something's primary attributes may not be necessary, it is another matter entirely to claim no primary attributes at all are necessary, as in the case of god.

As for your flawed analogy to foreign language, you fail to understand the difference between claiming something exists and acting as if you knew what it was. Even if we assume, again for argument's sake, that something exists, it does not mean that we know what that something is. If we do not know what it is, then it doesn't make sense to talk about it as if we knew what it was.

A word from a foreign language, on the other hand, is ascribed a meaning by someone. only once you know what the word means can you use that word as if you knew what it meant.

(BTW, don't be so angry when people disagree with you. Religious people especially have this all-too-common tendency to blow up when others disagree with their beliefs).

I'm sorry that you have perceived my posts as being angry. I am not angry about your supporting this argument. I hope that you believe whatever it is you truly feel is correct. I guess tone of voice is hard to determine in type. I don't find it offensive at all that your point of view is so different from my own. I was just hoping to discuss the argument that you posted because I read it and thought it was interesting. I wasn't looking for a fight. Best of luck with the rest of your thread.

i read it and think i understand it.
i really want to believe in god when i read arguments like that.........

I believe in fairies, i DO believe in fairies, i DO so believe in fairies.
I DO BELIEVE IN FAIRIES.

Maybe the increasing visible maladaption to life of aspies and auties in last 100 years is because people argued away god by looking for proof. Just an idea. ( god the solution to ASDs executive dysfunction)
Anyway, i think the argument is irrefutable, but that it has nothing whatsoever to do with god. Because the argument applies to reality. God isn't real. That's what is so powerful about god.
The trouble is that our society seems to think reality is sacred nowadays. As if unreality is of no importance. And it's true i find it difficult to avoid the headspace of measuring everything by how "real" , or not, it is.

So, no, i don't think word is meaningless, just rather worn out at representing the unreal. Especially after a couple of centuries of people trying to prove gods existence as if god were something real.

Sorry if I came across the wrong way. Thanks for keeping the discussion civil.

(BTW, I'm not sure about the argument. When I defend it, I'm just trying to see if it makes sense or not based on other people's responses.)

Please explain what you mean.

Okay; i have rephrased and elaborated and/or simplified in places, and hope it seems clearer now. Right:......................:

I have read the article and i understand the argument.
Whenever i read arguments like that I really want to believe in god because they tidy everything up so tight , as if they are mother putting all the toys away on the shelves, as if nothing, absolutely nothing, has the right to escape the tidying machine.
However I know from personal experience,( and from indirect, of reading what others have written, both about religious experiences, and about creativity,) that there is something which can escape. Something which bizarrely seems to exist, to be able to "live", despite all rules to the contrary. The unreal !
The feeling i got when i chose to believe in it ( saying to myself " i believe in god") was as if i were suddenly 6 years old, much lighter, and as if there was much more space in my head. In fact saying to myself that i believed in god felt almost exactly as if i were saying that I believed in fairies; to begin with scoffing and contemptuous but then gleeful, as if i had beaten the rules!!
So articles like the linked make me feel like Peter Pan saying,( in that wonderful recent film version, by "muriels wedding" director);
"I believe in fairies, i DO, i DO; I do believe in fairies, i DO, i DO; I do believe in fairies. I DO BELIEVE IN FAIRIES".

Who knows whether one reason for the increasingly common visible maladaption of aspies and auties to "normal functioning"/"life" in the last 100 years is because people argued away god by looking for proof. Just an idea. ( god was perhaps the long-running,inspired and almost perfect solution to AS Executive Dysfunction !)

I think the argument in your link might be irrefutable if god were supposed to be something real. But god isn't real. That's what is so powerful about "god".
I said on another thread, that "real" meant "central" originally, and the unreal was that which is all around it. Like darkness round a campfire. Just because can't see what's there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Western industrialised society seems to think reality is sacred. That unreality is of no importance; i think that this may be a serious mistake.

(It's true i find it difficult to avoid the headspace/mental habit of measuring everything by how "real" , or not, something/anything is. )

I don't think the word is meaningless, just rather worn out/shaky after so much time representing the unreal. Especially after a couple of centuries of people trying to PROVE gods existence as if god could possibly be something real.


Is that any better?

PS: the reason that i stopped doing that ( belief in god) was that after a while god became slightly alarming/demanding company; wanting me to behave certain ways etc, it didn't seem to be a one way thing any more; i couldn't just get the super buzz; i had to clean up my act, start making more of an effort in life. It was very strange.

Last edited by ouinon on 13 Dec 2007, 5:19 am, edited 3 times in total.

No problem about the tone thing. Sorry again that I sounded angry. I don't think I have a very good feel for tone of voice when I'm writing sometimes, especially in a debate. What makes you not sure about the argument? Is it just that you don't think it could really be that easy? Honestly, I didn't think about the argument as deeply as you seem to have thought about it. I just kind of skimmed it and started shooting from the hip.

Well, if the argument was that good, I'd expect to hear atheists like myself use it more often.

Plus, it sounds counter-intuitive, not a reason to reject the argument outright, but to take it with a grain of salt until it has passed a rigorous test of logical argumentation.

Also, a lot of ideas are simply vague as opposed to totally meaningless.

Another problem is that the logic of the argument seems to arrive at conclusions similar to those of the logical positivists, though the argument does not use the Verifiability Principle. Logical positivism was in many ways incoherent.

Also, the argument seems to apply to metaphysics in general. In my experience, broad conclusions tend to be wrong in at least some cases.

That, and I generally try not to leap to conclusions.

Okay, now I seriously think you're just messing with me.