Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Argument from non-cognitivism.

Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 3:21:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I know what you're thinking, "I should finish that book I've been reading" and "Oh, no. Magic is going to go on a rant about how God is meaningless."

Well, no I'm not. Many of you know I loved this argument and I've done a lot of work defending it and refining it. If you're not familiar with it, just check out some of my religious debates from a month ago or read this article.

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

I no longer hold this argument to be valid.

I changed the argument because if we can't define something that's in front of us, it doesn't mean it's meaningless. This is because it's within our experience. So my simplified argument went like so,

1. God is outside of our understanding and experience
2. We give meaning to words by referring to what we understand and experience
C. "God" is meaningless (From 1 and 2)

So, what made me reject this? I realized one could conceive what it would be like to be a god. God is defined as an immaterial mind. While this definition is poor it's not meaningless. Someone can close their eyes and imagine seeing themselves in their room. One can conceive of the body and mind being separate, thus we have experience of what it's like to be a god. While I still hold many attributes of God are meaningless, I don't hold that the generic concept of God to be meaningless. I'm not sure how a theist could justify meaning for most attributes.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 3:54:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:53:29 PM, benevolent wrote:
Did I have anything to do with this?

I doesn't matter. I agree, though.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:27:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:21:07 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I know what you're thinking, "I should finish that book I've been reading" and "Oh, no. Magic is going to go on a rant about how God is meaningless."

Well, no I'm not. Many of you know I loved this argument and I've done a lot of work defending it and refining it. If you're not familiar with it, just check out some of my religious debates from a month ago or read this article.

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

I no longer hold this argument to be valid.

I changed the argument because if we can't define something that's in front of us, it doesn't mean it's meaningless. This is because it's within our experience. So my simplified argument went like so,

1. God is outside of our understanding and experience
2. We give meaning to words by referring to what we understand and experience
C. "God" is meaningless (From 1 and 2)

The above is a really bad argument, as it is not even logically valid. The only way for it to be logically valid is if premise 1 read:

"1. God is completely outside of our understanding and experience"

God could have some attributes within our understanding, and some attributes outside of our understanding. We can define God based on the understanding we do have, and claim mysteriousness to the rest without issue.


So, what made me reject this? I realized one could conceive what it would be like to be a god. God is defined as an immaterial mind. While this definition is poor it's not meaningless. Someone can close their eyes and imagine seeing themselves in their room. One can conceive of the body and mind being separate, thus we have experience of what it's like to be a god. While I still hold many attributes of God are meaningless, I don't hold that the generic concept of God to be meaningless. I'm not sure how a theist could justify meaning for most attributes.