Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

God is meaningless

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 12:18:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The meaningfulness of religious discourse has been a familiar subject of debate for many years. Many noted intellectuals have discussed and debated the subject at length in attempts to refute or defend developing arguments. Although some of these writers have considered the dispute on a lesser and somewhat dissimilar level than shall be presented in this case, the fact remains that from its origins the Argument From Non-Cognitivism (hereafter the ANC) has stood as a significant threat to the theistic position.

There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
Primary Attributes
Secondary Attributes
Relational Attributes.
B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant's A in order to be considered meaningful.
The term "God" lacks a positively identified A.
Because of this, the term "God" holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
Therefore, the term "God" is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

http://www.strongatheism.net...

Question

1) How sound is this argument?
2) Can meaningless things exist?

Consider the following (From Atheism: The Case Against God)

Mr. Jones: "An unie exists."
Mr. White: "Prove it."
Mr. Jones: "It has rained for three consecutive days—that is my proof."

Mr. Jones has not specified what an "unie" is; until and unless he does so,
"unie" is nothing but a meaningless sound, and Mr. Jones is uttering nonsense. Without some
description of an "unie," the alleged proof for its existence is incoherent.

When confronted with the claim that a god exists, the person who immediately demands proof
commits the same error as does Mr. White. His first response should be, "What is it for which you
are claiming existence?" The theist must present an intelligible description of god. Until he does so,
"god" makes no more sense than "unie"; both are cognitively empty, and any attempt at proof is
logically absurd. Nothing can qualify as evidence for the existence of a god unless we have some
idea of what we are searching for. Even if it is demanded that the existence of god be accepted on
faith, we still must know what it is that we are required to have faith in. As W.T. Blackstone puts it:

"Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith
is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for
the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that
belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge."
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 12:36:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If God was meaningless and He may be to YOU. Why do you make a long thoughtout topic as this? Wouldnt it be meaningless. Atheist would disagree Im sure. Are you looking for acceptance from them? Kinda kiddy
Or are you looking to bash and argue with Theist? Kinda kiddy also
Or do you just like to set around and think of meaningless things to talk about? This is sad.
TheAsylum
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 12:18:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: It doesn't matter where it comes from what matters is it is 100% TRUE
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 12:26:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 12:18:53 PM, Microsuck wrote:
The meaningfulness of religious discourse has been a familiar subject of debate for many years. Many noted intellectuals have discussed and debated the subject at length in attempts to refute or defend developing arguments. Although some of these writers have considered the dispute on a lesser and somewhat dissimilar level than shall be presented in this case, the fact remains that from its origins the Argument From Non-Cognitivism (hereafter the ANC) has stood as a significant threat to the theistic position.

There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
Primary Attributes
Secondary Attributes
Relational Attributes.
B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant's A in order to be considered meaningful.
The term "God" lacks a positively identified A.
Because of this, the term "God" holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
Therefore, the term "God" is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

http://www.strongatheism.net...

Question

1) How sound is this argument?
2) Can meaningless things exist?

Consider the following (From Atheism: The Case Against God)

Mr. Jones: "An unie exists."
Mr. White: "Prove it."
Mr. Jones: "It has rained for three consecutive days—that is my proof."

Mr. Jones has not specified what an "unie" is; until and unless he does so,
"unie" is nothing but a meaningless sound, and Mr. Jones is uttering nonsense. Without some
description of an "unie," the alleged proof for its existence is incoherent.

When confronted with the claim that a god exists, the person who immediately demands proof
commits the same error as does Mr. White. His first response should be, "What is it for which you
are claiming existence?" The theist must present an intelligible description of god. Until he does so,
"god" makes no more sense than "unie"; both are cognitively empty, and any attempt at proof is
logically absurd. Nothing can qualify as evidence for the existence of a god unless we have some
idea of what we are searching for. Even if it is demanded that the existence of god be accepted on
faith, we still must know what it is that we are required to have faith in. As W.T. Blackstone puts it:

"Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith
is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for
the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that
belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge."

The Fool: I have been trying to explain this for a while now. Nobody who accept is even know what the hell they are accepting. This is a Fatal Blow to the entire notion of God. Because there simple isn't one. Any attempt to make a new definition. It an attempt to DEFINE GOD INTO EXISTENCE. It doesn't make sense now and it NEVER WAS RATIONAL or Even reasonable. Nor is any concept of reasonable faith. If something is reasonable well then faith is superflious.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Jacob_Apologist
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 8:26:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
what an absurd meaningless conjecture argument given by topic starter. I am posting this here only to call some good atheist apologists. I dont know how and where to find them. If there are some good debaters for atheism, then make give me some debate challenge.

I'd like to debate on topics like KCA, Moral ontology, etc
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 8:31:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 8:26:53 AM, Jacob_Apologist wrote:
what an absurd meaningless conjecture argument given by topic starter. I am posting this here only to call some good atheist apologists. I dont know how and where to find them. If there are some good debaters for atheism, then make give me some debate challenge.

I'd like to debate on topics like KCA, Moral ontology, etc

God bless you Jacob..WELCOME. You will find many here, happy hunting.
TheAsylum
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 8:32:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 10:47:31 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Microsuck got his topic word for word from..
Introduction To
Activistic Atheism
by Cliff Walker


I got the information from strongatheism.net (the link I posted) and from "Atheism: The Case Against God"
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 8:36:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 8:32:29 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 8/22/2012 10:47:31 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Microsuck got his topic word for word from..
Introduction To
Activistic Atheism
by Cliff Walker


I got the information from strongatheism.net (the link I posted) and from "Atheism: The Case Against God"

Hey, Micro, if you choose to do that debate we discussed, please take your time. Im bust the next few days. Thanks.
TheAsylum
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 12:36:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 12:18:53 PM, Microsuck wrote:
The meaningfulness of religious discourse has been a familiar subject of debate for many years. Many noted intellectuals have discussed and debated the subject at length in attempts to refute or defend developing arguments. Although some of these writers have considered the dispute on a lesser and somewhat dissimilar level than shall be presented in this case, the fact remains that from its origins the Argument From Non-Cognitivism (hereafter the ANC) has stood as a significant threat to the theistic position.

There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
Primary Attributes
Secondary Attributes
Relational Attributes.
B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant's A in order to be considered meaningful.
The term "God" lacks a positively identified A.
Because of this, the term "God" holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
Therefore, the term "God" is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

http://www.strongatheism.net...

Question

1) How sound is this argument?
2) Can meaningless things exist?

Consider the following (From Atheism: The Case Against God)

Mr. Jones: "An unie exists."
Mr. White: "Prove it."
Mr. Jones: "It has rained for three consecutive days—that is my proof."

Mr. Jones has not specified what an "unie" is; until and unless he does so,
"unie" is nothing but a meaningless sound, and Mr. Jones is uttering nonsense. Without some
description of an "unie," the alleged proof for its existence is incoherent.

When confronted with the claim that a god exists, the person who immediately demands proof
commits the same error as does Mr. White. His first response should be, "What is it for which you
are claiming existence?" The theist must present an intelligible description of god. Until he does so,
"god" makes no more sense than "unie"; both are cognitively empty, and any attempt at proof is
logically absurd. Nothing can qualify as evidence for the existence of a god unless we have some
idea of what we are searching for. Even if it is demanded that the existence of god be accepted on
faith, we still must know what it is that we are required to have faith in. As W.T. Blackstone puts it:

"Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith
is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for
the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that
belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge."

The argument is not at all sound. It assumes that we know nothing of God. We have enough information from the Bible to know God's nature, and know what it is that we have faith in. To say that we must prove what we have faith in, before having faith is illogical, as there would then be no need for faith.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 12:38:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 10:47:31 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Microsuck got his topic word for word from..
Introduction To
Activistic Atheism
by Cliff Walker


Actually, I believe "Unie" is a phrase used by George Smith. Though it could be Walker was citing Smith, never heard of the Walker book.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 1:23:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This argument ignores the external causes of emotional and prescriptive reactions, that's one. Two is the fact that what Christian's argue for is a maximally great being, and whatever goes to make up great making properties can be gradually discovred without undermining meaning. Even the act of forming such a construction indicates some sort of cognition in the process.

Even so, the ontological argument, even if false, gives a good working definition of God that represents an analytic proposition which is true a priori.

This is an out-dated argument that was bolstered in the late 50's just before the collapse of verificationism and Kuhnian / Wittgenstein's thought.

It holds little to no ground in the current philosophical climateon religious epistemology. See Plantinga.