I wasn't sure if this should be in philosophy or here but anyways.

So the way I understand it theological noncognitivists say that the definition of the concept of "god" is incoherent and thus cannot be discussed, since being nonsensical.

Wikipedia gives the following example:

The sentence X is a four-sided triangle that exists outside of space and time, cannot be seen or measured and it actively hates blue spheres is an example of an unthinkable proposition. Although the sentence expresses an idea, that idea is incoherent and so cannot be entertained in thought. It is unthinkable and unverifiable.

To make it more familiar let me play the devil's advocate and assert god is a supernatural being that exists outside of our observable universe, cannot be seen or measured unless god wants us to see it. I understand that it is unverifiable but why can't this assertion be entertained in thought? Why is it unthinkable? I can certainly picture a being that is above the physical laws we observe, I can even picture it being so much more above that we will never be able to see it unless it wants us to.

Let's say in the center of a black hole lies a wormhole which connects to another universe. That's also unverifiable but it's an established theory in physics (Einstein-Rosen bridge).

There is no observational evidence for wormholes, but on a theoretical level there are valid solutions to the equations of the theory of general relativity which contain wormholes.

In short there's no evidence for wormholes and there's no evidence for parallel universes. There's no evidence for supernaturality either. Yet the first is considered to be something we can work on and the second is not being accepted as an idea that could be discussed (by ignosticists).

That's probably an easy one for you, I just fail to connect the dots (again *cough*).

Hit me

We can imagine that there could be "stuff" which is incomprehensible for us. What a contradiction! :) For example there could be something which has no properties, while to describe it would would have to talk about its properties: Locke substance - "something we not know what", or Lavine "stuff" - could be the smallest possible particles, where multi-particle state would represent further amount of "stuff" such that it does not contain proper parts.*

Can a dog comprehend how a wheel works for example? We cannot ask it, but .. why do we think that our brains can, have capacity and ability to, comprehend, everything , and we do not even have to go as far as supernatural, there is in the Universe? Can someone with IQ of 60 comprehend quantum mechanics? Hard to say.

Why wormholes and why not supernatural? Wormholes could exist in the Universe, but isn't supernatural outside or above it by definition? Is the "primitive substance" or "stuff" above it by definition? Though this kind of physics is beyond me so I will have to pass.


*I am aware of criticism and I cannot grasp it too well so do not bother ..

Yes but we can describe stuff we can't comprehend in its entirety, no? So why is a description of "some being that governs the laws of the universe but does not rely on the "stuff" the observable universe is made out of by itself" invalid?
If you pressupose that a god is outside of our observable reality you have to describe it in a sense that it doesn't "fall back" on what we define as natural. I'm not talking about such arbitrary synonyms like "god is love" or "god is nature". My understanding of what most mean by imagining god is a conscious being that is much more intelligent (etc) than any other conscious species. The dude who started it all. I simply don't get why this isn't a concept that couldn't be attacked

But theological noncognitivists say just that, they ask for a proper ontology before arguing about the existence of a god.

ETA: Maybe my post doesn't make any sense but I'm struggling as to what I don't get

Greetings,

Words either have concrete meaning that can be demonstrated independently, or they do not. How does one demonstrate "god"? Can you pull your "soul" out and show it to me? Yet we all speak of "supernatural entities" as if these things have meaning, yet nobody has ever been able to conclusively demonstrate that they exist in reality. They exist as ideas, no more "real" than a character in a work of fiction. How "real" they are to you depends more on the skill and imagination of the writer (as well as the imaginations of readers).

In order for reality to be truly real, there must be more to it than just words. What does it matter if someone can quote chapter and verse of a holy book, if they take what is written there so literally, that they would rather dispute reality rather than fantasy? If they would so readily dismiss facts for fiction, what sort of "reality" are they living in? It is possible such a person could become so deluded by this kind of thinking that they become a danger to themselves, or others. Yet our society seems to heap veneration and praise upon such "non-thought."

I would say that the most important distinction you have missed is that theological terms are nothing more than a literary, understandable only in terms of words that have no reality beyond that which they are given by people predisposed to believe in them. I would say for the Theological Non-Cognitivist, (or Ignostic)"Reality" is understood as something that continues to exist regardless of whether there is a word to define it.

Most people within the same religion can't have exactly the same idea what they mean when they say, or think "god," how could they? They are simply ideas in the minds of those who believe them, they exist no where else. At best, one might be able to claim religious terminology is symbolic, (or metaphoric, to be more precise), but that is not the context in which most people claim to believe in them.

http://www.control-z.com/czp/pgs/ignostic.html

http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Journ ... onifer.htm

I hope these links help.

Greetings!

First of all thanks for your reply!

Let me focus on this bit

tanstaafl28 wrote:They exist as ideas

Exactly and it's the idea that can be attacked and refuted, no? Say atheism is the rejection of the idea of a god/of gods, for example. But as far as I understand it noncognitivists reject atheism because they argue there's no coherent definition on the concept of a god someone (e.g. an atheist) could reject. Why can't we use "god" as a placeholder term for something that is simply unknown or fictional to us? Or what is it nontheists reject then? What is god if impossible to define? I consider a god to be a man-made and fictional idea, just like unicorns but less related to what we are familiar with. We could reject the idea of a fictional character in a sense that we say "I lack belief in this and that character you just defined...." and so forth.

I'll check those links later, thanks again

I would say that you could call it "realism." People constantly talk about things for which they have no real idea what they mean. That is nothing new. Perhaps what is new is that for the first time, philosophy and science have broken far enough away from their religious roots to actually provide more meaningful, and real answers than simply explaining them away by use of "placeholders."

tanstaafl28 wrote:I would say that you could call it "realism."

For the theists God is the "ens realissimum", the most real being.

LIFE wrote:I wasn't sure if this should be in philosophy or here but anyways.

So the way I understand it theological noncognitivists say that the definition of the concept of "god" is incoherent and thus cannot be discussed, since being nonsensical.

Wikipedia gives the following example:

The sentence X is a four-sided triangle that exists outside of space and time, cannot be seen or measured and it actively hates blue spheres is an example of an unthinkable proposition. Although the sentence expresses an idea, that idea is incoherent and so cannot be entertained in thought. It is unthinkable and unverifiable.

To make it more familiar let me play the devil's advocate and assert god is a supernatural being that exists outside of our observable universe, cannot be seen or measured unless god wants us to see it. I understand that it is unverifiable but why can't this assertion be entertained in thought? Why is it unthinkable? I can certainly picture a being that is above the physical laws we observe, I can even picture it being so much more above that we will never be able to see it unless it wants us to.

Let's say in the center of a black hole lies a wormhole which connects to another universe. That's also unverifiable but it's an established theory in physics (Einstein-Rosen bridge).

There is no observational evidence for wormholes, but on a theoretical level there are valid solutions to the equations of the theory of general relativity which contain wormholes.

In short there's no evidence for wormholes and there's no evidence for parallel universes. There's no evidence for supernaturality either. Yet the first is considered to be something we can work on and the second is not being accepted as an idea that could be discussed (by ignosticists).

That's probably an easy one for you, I just fail to connect the dots (again *cough*).

Hit me

Wormholes are theoretically possible. While no observational evidence exists its at least possible in theory to collect and confirm such evidence. (Probably by amassing mathematical proofs that support the idea) God is defined so that he/she/it is theoretically impossible to demonstrate. Also while billions of people contend that god does exist, I don't know anyone, and have never heard of anyone that says that they believe that wormholes exist. The most important distinction however is that the concept of wormholes while not demonstrated is internally logically consistent , the concept of the supernatural is not. If we define the natural world as that which is accessible via our senses what definition are we to assign the supernatural world? How would you set about testing that definition? Furthermore since I have no doubt that you believe in the supernatural what evidence are you relying on to arrive at that conclusion?
In short its not a workable concept at all which is why I would seriously suspect anyone trying to discuss it , I can't even imagine how such an inane discussion would unfold.

So do you have a mathematical theory of gods?

Madmaili wrote:Wormholes are theoretically possible. While no observational evidence exists its at least possible in theory to collect and confirm such evidence. (Probably by amassing mathematical proofs that support the idea) God is defined so that he/she/it is theoretically impossible to demonstrate. Also while billions of people contend that god does exist, I don't know anyone, and have never heard of anyone that says that they believe that wormholes exist. The most important distinction however is that the concept of wormholes while not demonstrated is internally logically consistent , the concept of the supernatural is not. If we define the natural world as that which is accessible via our senses what definition are we to assign the supernatural world? How would you set about testing that definition? Furthermore since I have no doubt that you believe in the supernatural what evidence are you relying on to arrive at that conclusion?
In short its not a workable concept at all which is why I would seriously suspect anyone trying to discuss it , I can't even imagine how such an inane discussion would unfold.

So an idea is meaningless if it's not falsifiable?

Its an interesting question.

To define god I believe you must be able to indicate what god was supposed to be before creating the universe, which must include "time".

So we have an entity that is the only "thing" that exists. It has thoughts and decides to create. Plans and then acts. Within the new universe this thing creates "man in its own image" and is concerned that man obey laws that it has decided are "good".

I think there are lots of bits there that "do not compute" as well as many things that contradict observable reality or are so unobservable or untestable that one has to ask how anyone can know about it in the first place.

The "in his image" thing is probably one of the more incoherent parts. Why would god, prior to creation, have any image at all? Did god have a penis or vagina? What about a navel? Why would god have limbs as the only thing existing? For that mater why lungs, does god breathe? Why a stomach, does it eat? Why nose or mouth and what use eyes? Anus perhaps? Ears for listening to what exactly? Perhaps a brain for the thinking to happen in?

LIFE wrote:

Madmaili wrote:Wormholes are theoretically possible. While no observational evidence exists its at least possible in theory to collect and confirm such evidence. (Probably by amassing mathematical proofs that support the idea) God is defined so that he/she/it is theoretically impossible to demonstrate. Also while billions of people contend that god does exist, I don't know anyone, and have never heard of anyone that says that they believe that wormholes exist. The most important distinction however is that the concept of wormholes while not demonstrated is internally logically consistent , the concept of the supernatural is not. If we define the natural world as that which is accessible via our senses what definition are we to assign the supernatural world? How would you set about testing that definition? Furthermore since I have no doubt that you believe in the supernatural what evidence are you relying on to arrive at that conclusion?
In short its not a workable concept at all which is why I would seriously suspect anyone trying to discuss it , I can't even imagine how such an inane discussion would unfold.

So an idea is meaningless if it's not falsifiable?

Yes, if an idea is not falsifiable how would you be able to distinguish between it's validity and non validity? That isn't the only problem here , not only is it not falsifiable its not demonstrable, definable, detectable or testable. This is all true only if you happen to be one of those people that claim the supernatural as an entirely different and separate realm of existence that never interacts with the natural.

I call myself a theological noncognitivist simply because I cannot imagine anything that "God" could refer to. I can't call myself an atheist, because atheists say "God does not exist". I can't say that because I have no idea of anything that could be saying that doesn't exist.

Also, I can't call myself an agnostic, because agnostics say "I don't know whether God exists or not". I can't say that either because I have no idea of anything that could be saying that I am withholding judgment on the existence of.

And besides, they all essentually say "God is that which caused everything to exist but God". But that starts and ends with "God", so it's a circular definition.

The way I see it nobody worships any god at all. They just think they do.

wikipedia wrote:

The sentence X is a four-sided triangle that exists outside of space and time, cannot be seen or measured and it actively hates blue spheres is an example of an unthinkable proposition.

How is this unthinkable? It's straightforwardly false. There are no four-sided triangles, so if someone says that X is a four-sided triangle that blah.... I will just say "no it isn't".

Edwin McCravy wrote:I call myself a theological noncognitivist simply because I cannot imagine anything that "God" could refer to. I can't call myself an atheist, because atheists say "God does not exist". I can't say that because I have no idea of anything that could be saying that doesn't exist.

Welcome to the forum, Edwin. Some might. They don't all though. They just lack belief in any gods.

Also, I can't call myself an agnostic, because agnostics say "I don't know whether God exists or not". I can't say that either because I have no idea of anything that could be saying that I am withholding judgment on the existence of.

Be that as it may, you don't know or claim to know whether God exists or not, so you would count as an agnostic.

And besides, they all essentually say "God is that which caused everything to exist but God". But that starts and ends with "God", so it's a circular definition.

The way I see it nobody worships any god at all. They just think they do.

Well, my guess is that they worship the god of their imagination. There's something about your statement there that makes me uneasy, in that I have an itch telling me you might be contradicting your earlier statements somehow.

Edwin McCravy wrote:I call myself a theological noncognitivist simply because I cannot imagine anything that "God" could refer to. I can't call myself an atheist, because atheists say "God does not exist". I can't say that because I have no idea of anything that could be saying that doesn't exist.

Also, I can't call myself an agnostic, because agnostics say "I don't know whether God exists or not". I can't say that either because I have no idea of anything that could be saying that I am withholding judgment on the existence of.

And besides, they all essentually say "God is that which caused everything to exist but God". But that starts and ends with "God", so it's a circular definition.

The way I see it nobody worships any god at all. They just think they do.

Do you accept as true the claim that a god or gods exist?

For more concreteness, here's how Paul Tillich puts it: "God is the ground of being." A famous theist poster named Metacrock expands on this by saying that God is the Derridian Transcendental Signifier.

I'm non-cognitivist on that shite. At least for now.

If "God" is defined as any sort of intentional being which interacts with this universe to cause outcomes which would not have occurred without God, then regardless of the sensibility of its definition, God is falsifiable. The presence or absence of a God can be tested by looking for instances in which God-dependent outcomes occurred. Absent such instances, we could conclude that there probably is not a God.

Where we run into problems is not so much with the definition of God, but rather with what believers choose to define as God-dependent outcomes. They seem to be identical to God-independent outcomes.

VazScep wrote:

wikipedia wrote:

The sentence X is a four-sided triangle that exists outside of space and time, cannot be seen or measured and it actively hates blue spheres is an example of an unthinkable proposition.

How is this unthinkable? It's straightforwardly false. There are no four-sided triangles, so if someone says that X is a four-sided triangle that blah.... I will just say "no it isn't".

Think of the proposition as a big conjunction. Even if one of the conjuncts were false, the rest would still need to be meaningful, intelligible, etc. My mind muddles up when I hear that a triangle hates blue spheres.