Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

I can haz god plz?

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#61  Postby stijndeloose » Dec 30, 2011 10:44 am

Made of Stars wrote:So basically we've got nothing?


Not sure. It seems that, so far, rainbow's non-theist non-definition equals God with infinity, or something.
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 39
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#62  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 30, 2011 10:51 am

rainbow wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Possibly. An omnipotent being wouldn't be constrained by the rules of logic.


Yay square circles time.

What you're doing rainbow is pushing this god outside the realm of definition.

You win the bumper prize.
Well done!



So you admit that you haven't provided a definition.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24738
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#63  Postby UnderConstruction » Dec 30, 2011 10:53 am

rainbow wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Possibly. An omnipotent being wouldn't be constrained by the rules of logic.


Yay square circles time.

What you're doing rainbow is pushing this god outside the realm of definition.

You win the bumper prize.
Well done!


Oh, I don't know. I think I can have a stab at defining this being. "Useless".
"Origins from God/Genesis are secular actually as we see it." - Robert Byers
User avatar
UnderConstruction
 
Posts: 1297
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#64  Postby THWOTH » Dec 30, 2011 12:12 pm

Made of Stars wrote:So basically we've got nothing?

Not quite.

God is still dog backwards.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37086
Age: 54

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#65  Postby z8000783 » Dec 30, 2011 1:04 pm

So can I confirm then that it is the case that, it is irrational to believe that a God that cannot be defined, does not exist.

John
I don’t simply believe in miracles - I rely on them
z8000783
 
Name: WTF
Posts: 9325
Age: 66
Male

Greece (gr)
Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#66  Postby Blip » Dec 30, 2011 5:52 pm


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
All contributors are reminded to stick to the topic under discussion in this thread, which is a coherent definition of the Abrahamic god. Further posts judged to be off topic may be removed.
Evolving wrote:Blip, intrepid pilot of light aircraft and wrangler with alligators.
User avatar
Blip
Moderator
 
Posts: 20468
Female

Country: United Kingdom
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#67  Postby THWOTH » Dec 30, 2011 5:55 pm

z8000783 wrote:So can I confirm then that it is the case that, it is irrational to believe that a God that cannot be defined, does not exist.

John

Can you?
Will you?
Do you?
:ask:
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37086
Age: 54

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#68  Postby I.C.37 » Dec 30, 2011 8:11 pm

I'll just plug this here, seems relevant. It's from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia wrote:Theological noncognitivism is the argument that religious language, and specifically words like "god", are not cognitively meaningful.

Wikipedia wrote:Theological noncognitivism can be argued in different ways, depending on one's theory of meaning. Michael Martin, writing from a verificationist perspective, concludes that religious language is meaningless because it is not verifiable.[1][2]

George H. Smith uses an attribute-based approach in an attempt to prove that there is no concept for the term "God": he argues that there are no meaningful attributes, only negatively defined or relational attributes, making the term meaningless.

Wikipedia wrote:Some theological noncognitivists assert that to be a strong atheist is to give credence to the concept of God because it assumes that there actually is something understandable to not believe in. This can be confusing because of the widespread belief in God and the common use of the series of letters G-o-d as if it is already understood that it has some cognitively understandable meaning. From this view strong atheists have made the mistaken assumption that the concept of God actually contains an expressible or thinkable proposition.


Fun stuff.
"When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe - in awe! - of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion."
G. Carlin
User avatar
I.C.37
 
Posts: 196

Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#69  Postby THWOTH » Dec 30, 2011 8:23 pm

I.C.37 wrote:I'll just plug this here, seems relevant. It's from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia wrote:Theological noncognitivism is the argument that religious language, and specifically words like "god", are not cognitively meaningful.

Wikipedia wrote:Theological noncognitivism can be argued in different ways, depending on one's theory of meaning. Michael Martin, writing from a verificationist perspective, concludes that religious language is meaningless because it is not verifiable.[1][2]

George H. Smith uses an attribute-based approach in an attempt to prove that there is no concept for the term "God": he argues that there are no meaningful attributes, only negatively defined or relational attributes, making the term meaningless.

Wikipedia wrote:Some theological noncognitivists assert that to be a strong atheist is to give credence to the concept of God because it assumes that there actually is something understandable to not believe in. This can be confusing because of the widespread belief in God and the common use of the series of letters G-o-d as if it is already understood that it has some cognitively understandable meaning. From this view strong atheists have made the mistaken assumption that the concept of God actually contains an expressible or thinkable proposition.


Fun stuff.

I@m with Wittgenstien on this...

    "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."
:D
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37086
Age: 54

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#70  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 30, 2011 8:36 pm

I.C.37 wrote:*snip*

Fun stuff.


That's why, for 2012, I will henceforth be self-describing as an ignostic post-theist. :shifty: :naughty2:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24738
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#71  Postby Made of Stars » Dec 30, 2011 8:59 pm

z8000783 wrote:So can I confirm then that it is the case that, it is irrational to believe that a God that cannot be defined, does not exist.

John

The original point is that it's difficult to define arguments for or against a position when the position (in this case the Abrahamic god) is poorly defined. It seems to me that many a/theism discussions are fruitless exercises because the proponents of theism don't know what their god is.
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9815
Age: 51
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#72  Postby Oldskeptic » Dec 30, 2011 9:04 pm

I.C.37 wrote:I'll just plug this here, seems relevant. It's from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia wrote:Theological noncognitivism is the argument that religious language, and specifically words like "god", are not cognitively meaningful.

Wikipedia wrote:Theological noncognitivism can be argued in different ways, depending on one's theory of meaning. Michael Martin, writing from a verificationist perspective, concludes that religious language is meaningless because it is not verifiable.[1][2]

George H. Smith uses an attribute-based approach in an attempt to prove that there is no concept for the term "God": he argues that there are no meaningful attributes, only negatively defined or relational attributes, making the term meaningless.

Wikipedia wrote:Some theological noncognitivists assert that to be a strong atheist is to give credence to the concept of God because it assumes that there actually is something understandable to not believe in. This can be confusing because of the widespread belief in God and the common use of the series of letters G-o-d as if it is already understood that it has some cognitively understandable meaning. From this view strong atheists have made the mistaken assumption that the concept of God actually contains an expressible or thinkable proposition.


Fun stuff.


George H. Smith didn't say that "God" could not be defined. He pointed out that many Christians and the Catholic church begin by describing their god with negative attributes such as, unknowable, immaterial, and ineffable, but then go ahead and add positive attributes such as all loving, all knowing, all powerful, merciful... to a god that they have admitted that can't be known or described.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 62
Male

Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#73  Postby z8000783 » Dec 31, 2011 7:00 am

Made of Stars wrote:
z8000783 wrote:So can I confirm then that it is the case that, it is irrational to believe that a God that cannot be defined, does not exist.

John

The original point is that it's difficult to define arguments for or against a position when the position (in this case the Abrahamic god) is poorly defined. It seems to me that many a/theism discussions are fruitless exercises because the proponents of theism don't know what their god is.

So is it reasonable for someone to say "God does not exist" on that basis?

John
I don’t simply believe in miracles - I rely on them
z8000783
 
Name: WTF
Posts: 9325
Age: 66
Male

Greece (gr)
Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#74  Postby stijndeloose » Dec 31, 2011 7:26 am

z8000783 wrote:So is it reasonable for someone to say "God does not exist" on that basis?


It'd be a bit careless, I think. If you don't know what or who "god" is, you can't really say whether it/he/she exists or not either. There's merely no good reason to take the possibility of its existence into account.
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 39
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#75  Postby Made of Stars » Dec 31, 2011 8:19 am

stijndeloose wrote:
z8000783 wrote:So is it reasonable for someone to say "Blibblefarts do not exist" on that basis?

It'd be a bit careless, I think. If you don't know what or who a "blibblefart" is, you can't really say whether it/he/she exists or not either. There's merely no good reason to take the possibility of its existence into account.

:this: Edited (in red) for emphasis. We can say with a good degree of confidence that it sounds like made-up shit, but as anyone who's played Scrabble with someone who takes it seriously knows, you can't be certain that it's not real until you've done the hard yards to find out.

The point of this thread is to get Blibblefartists, the proponents of its/their existence, to present us with something concrete to go on, instead of the usual ineffable wibble.

So far strong ablibblefartism is looking good, or bad, depending on what conclusions you draw from the poor support from the Blibblefartists. :)
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9815
Age: 51
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#76  Postby z8000783 » Dec 31, 2011 9:22 am

stijndeloose wrote:
z8000783 wrote:So is it reasonable for someone to say "God does not exist" on that basis?


It'd be a bit careless, I think. If you don't know what or who "god" is, you can't really say whether it/he/she exists or not either. There's merely no good reason to take the possibility of its existence into account.

Isn't that the weak atheist position? Are there any strong atheists here who disagree with this?

John
I don’t simply believe in miracles - I rely on them
z8000783
 
Name: WTF
Posts: 9325
Age: 66
Male

Greece (gr)
Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#77  Postby Made of Stars » Dec 31, 2011 1:10 pm

z8000783 wrote:
stijndeloose wrote:
z8000783 wrote:So is it reasonable for someone to say "God does not exist" on that basis?

It'd be a bit careless, I think. If you don't know what or who "god" is, you can't really say whether it/he/she exists or not either. There's merely no good reason to take the possibility of its existence into account.

Isn't that the weak atheist position? Are there any strong atheists here who disagree with this?

John

It's the weak asomethingist position. The point of the thread (once again) is to get theists to front up and define their god.
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9815
Age: 51
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Wanted - A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#78  Postby Lion IRC » Dec 31, 2011 1:34 pm

Made of Stars wrote:
Jireh wrote:Please present the reasons, which most convince you strong atheism is true. Base it on a positive arguments , not on a negative ( the bible is garbage etc..... )

In another thread, Jireh posted the above.

On reflection, I came to the question: If a coherent positive argument for a-theism is to be presented, a coherent definition of theism must exist, and specifically, a coherent definition of the object of theism should be provided.

So how about it theists? Can you provide a coherent definition of god? As the common object on this forum is the Abrahamic god (YWHW, the triune god, Allah, etc) let's run with that one. Perhaps once you've come up with a consistent definition, we can have a common base to work from, define atheism, and develop arguments for and against that position.

:cheers:


Since when is atheism reliant, for its own existence as an idea, on a definition of One single, individual God out of ALLthe other thousands of gods it EQUALLY rejects?

Get onto these, Then we'll talk!
The Celibate Rifles - Hindu Gods of Love (1996)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHK-VOVVB4E[/youtube]
Last edited by Lion IRC on Dec 31, 2011 1:52 pm, edited 8 times in total.
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
User avatar
Lion IRC
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 4077

Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#79  Postby UnderConstruction » Dec 31, 2011 1:36 pm

Lion IRC wrote:
Since when is atheism reliant, for its own existence as an idea, on a definition of one single, individual God out of all the other thousands of gods it EQUALLY rejects?


It isn't, you are just missing the fucking point as usual.
"Origins from God/Genesis are secular actually as we see it." - Robert Byers
User avatar
UnderConstruction
 
Posts: 1297
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#80  Postby Made of Stars » Dec 31, 2011 1:38 pm

Lion, we're talking about theism and atheism here, not polytheism and apolytheism.

Care to contribute, or just be ineffable? Let's have some cold hard characteristics of this thing you worship. You must know what it is, if you're devoting yourself to it. Right?
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9815
Age: 51
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest