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

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!

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!

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

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

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.

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.

"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."

I.C.37 wrote:*snip*

Fun stuff.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?