Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theological non-cognitivism is nonsense.

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 2:47:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Theological non-cognitivism is the position that "God" is not a cognitively meaningful term and therefore the question of whether or not God exists is invalid.

What is meant by "cognitively meaningful" is that the statement must have the ability to be either true or false (or be "truth-apt".) For example "Huzzah for Michael!" is not a cognitively meaningful statement because it can't be true or false. It's just an expression of approval.

"God" is broadly defined. The does not make the concept non-cognitive.

God cannot be empirically tested for. This does not make the concept invalid.

"An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false.

If you disagree let's hear it.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 3:00:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 2:47:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theological non-cognitivism is the position that "God" is not a cognitively meaningful term and therefore the question of whether or not God exists is invalid.
Although not a noncognitivist, I disagree entirely with your stance.

The divinity of the Old Testament is YHWH or G-d (his name) and is distinctively separate from the divinity of Plato and Aristotle or from Allah of the Quran.

For Christians, YHWH or G-d "emptied" the heavens of content and made himself into a man in humble surroundings (Philippians 2:7). This is taken to mean that the divinity of the New Testament enters his own creation, abandons omniscience and omnipotence, which is radically different from G-d the Father of the Old Testament (or Allah of the Quran).

Now, a noncognitivist is simply someone who looks at all this and says: I give up, I can't form meaningful, ethically oriented sentences out of these sources.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 3:05:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 3:00:22 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/26/2016 2:47:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theological non-cognitivism is the position that "God" is not a cognitively meaningful term and therefore the question of whether or not God exists is invalid.
Although not a noncognitivist, I disagree entirely with your stance.

The divinity of the Old Testament is YHWH or G-d (his name) and is distinctively separate from the divinity of Plato and Aristotle or from Allah of the Quran.

For Christians, YHWH or G-d "emptied" the heavens of content and made himself into a man in humble surroundings (Philippians 2:7). This is taken to mean that the divinity of the New Testament enters his own creation, abandons omniscience and omnipotence, which is radically different from G-d the Father of the Old Testament (or Allah of the Quran).

Now, a noncognitivist is simply someone who looks at all this and says: I give up, I can't form meaningful, ethically oriented sentences out of these sources.

My OP is in reference to the meaning of "God" in the general sense. It's not geared towards Christian theism.

Also, what you've described in your post is more a matter of definitional logical inconsistency rather than non-cognitivism.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 4:51:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 3:05:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
My OP is in reference to the meaning of "God" in the general sense. It's not geared towards Christian theism.
There is no general sense, no metalanguage that clarifies what you are referring to. You have to qualify it by being specific and by pointing out which interpretation is relevant. Then and only then have you made clear what you are referring to.

Also, what you've described in your post is more a matter of definitional logical inconsistency rather than non-cognitivism.
No, it is the prerequisite that guides noncognitivists. And as the divine is not verifiable, there is no conclusion to be drawn from it in argumentation.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 5:18:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 4:51:17 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/26/2016 3:05:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
My OP is in reference to the meaning of "God" in the general sense. It's not geared towards Christian theism.
There is no general sense, no metalanguage that clarifies what you are referring to. You have to qualify it by being specific and by pointing out which interpretation is relevant. Then and only then have you made clear what you are referring to.

I implied that I was taking about a general definition of the word God in the OP when I said "God' is broadly defined. The does not make the concept non-cognitive."

I also disagree that there's no general meaning of the word "God" since it almost always refers to a Supreme being / intelligent designer of the universe.

Also, what you've described in your post is more a matter of definitional logical inconsistency rather than non-cognitivism.
No, it is the prerequisite that guides noncognitivists. And as the divine is not verifiable, there is no conclusion to be drawn from it in argumentation.

If something is logically absurd then it's metaphysically impossible to actually conceive of the concept. All metaphysically impossible concepts are non-cognitive. Not all non-cognitive concepts are metaphysically impossible to conceive of. So I think in that sense I agree with you.

How do you define "verifiable?" If it verifiable that 2 " 2 = 4?
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 5:43:42 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 5:18:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I implied that I was taking about a general definition of the word God in the OP when I said "God' is broadly defined. The does not make the concept non-cognitive."
The English language definition is always-already tied to a Judaeo-Christian conception which includes both the Old Testament G-d of omniscience and omnipotence and the humble carpenter Jesus. And then there's Allah who, unlike G-d, never rested when creating the world. And let's not go into Brahma and his many manifestations.

Therefore, considering the above, the onus is on you to pick one of the many definitions. Because the non-cognitivist remains an ignostic until the relevant coordinates are set.

If something is logically absurd then it's metaphysically impossible to actually conceive of the concept. All metaphysically impossible concepts are non-cognitive. Not all non-cognitive concepts are metaphysically impossible to conceive of. So I think in that sense I agree with you.
Precisely. The virgin birth, for instance, is entirely illogical yet metaphysically conceivable. Although a non-cognitivist would be nonplussed.

How do you define "verifiable?" If it verifiable that 2 " 2 = 4?
Math is different because it is tautological; always-already confirming its validity. What is meant by verifiable is that which passes the test of empirical method. By contrast, rational accounts (in the Kantian sense) can be claimed or supported.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 5:46:30 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 2:47:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theological non-cognitivism is the position that "God" is not a cognitively meaningful term and therefore the question of whether or not God exists is invalid.

What is meant by "cognitively meaningful" is that the statement must have the ability to be either true or false (or be "truth-apt".) For example "Huzzah for Michael!" is not a cognitively meaningful statement because it can't be true or false. It's just an expression of approval.

"God" is broadly defined. The does not make the concept non-cognitive.

God cannot be empirically tested for. This does not make the concept invalid.


"An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false.

If you disagree let's hear it.

First, what is Theological Noncogntivism...

In order for something to be truth apt it must be defined in a meaningful way.

Just like the question "Does kjszhglkfsdjgrsdjgn exist?" is completely meaningless as "kjszhglkfsdjgrsdjgn" is not meaningfully defined, under theological noncogntivism the question "Does god exist?" is also completely meaningless as "god" is not meaningfully defined.

Furthermore, in order for something to be truth apt in regards to existence it must be a coherent concept. In order for a concept to be meaningful it must be able to contain Primary Attributes (you don't necessarily have to be able to identify the Primary Attributes of said concept). Under theological noncogntivism (most versions), "god" cannot logically contain Primary Attributes.

Defending Theological Noncogntivism

NOTE: This presupposes that "God" must be limitless, that any concept that is limited cannot be called "god".

First, can a "god" have Primary Attributes?
Well, what is a Primary Attribute?
It is the fundamental characteristics or essence of a thing. What that thing, ultimately, is.
What is important about Primary Attributes is that all other forms of Attributes (secondary, relational, etc.) can only be applied to something that contains Primary Attributes. Something without Primary Attributes can have no attributes at all, and thus us a meaningless concept.

Now, what prevents "god" from having Primary Attributes? The fact that "god" is required to be limitless.
To contain any Primary Attributes is to be limited by those Attribute/within the context of those Attributes.
A limitless being cannot contain Primary Attributes as that entails a paradox.

This alone entails Theological Noncogntivism, but that isn't the only issue.

In order to talk about "god" as a coherent concept it must be objective and well-defined and thus have objective predicated qualities (just like with Primary Attributes, this definition does not necessarily have to be known).

Any objective and well-defined concept must be able to be expressed in the form of a well-ordered expression (again, it does not necessarily have to be known to us) and be non-paradoxical.

Due to a variation of Russel's Paradox, such a concept must be limited by the language it is defined within (otherwise a paradox is entailed). God, having to be unlimited, cannot be limited in such a way, and thus a paradox is entailed.

This means that the "god" concept is not defined in a meaningful way, and thus theological noncogntivism entails.

(credit to KthuluHimself for helping me develop some of this).

The issue is not that "god" is broadly defined (in which is an issue in and of itself), it is that "god" is not meaningfully defined.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 6:12:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 5:46:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/26/2016 2:47:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theological non-cognitivism is the position that "God" is not a cognitively meaningful term and therefore the question of whether or not God exists is invalid.

What is meant by "cognitively meaningful" is that the statement must have the ability to be either true or false (or be "truth-apt".) For example "Huzzah for Michael!" is not a cognitively meaningful statement because it can't be true or false. It's just an expression of approval.

"God" is broadly defined. The does not make the concept non-cognitive.

God cannot be empirically tested for. This does not make the concept invalid.


"An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false.

If you disagree let's hear it.

First, what is Theological Noncogntivism...

In order for something to be truth apt it must be defined in a meaningful way.

Just like the question "Does kjszhglkfsdjgrsdjgn exist?" is completely meaningless as "kjszhglkfsdjgrsdjgn" is not meaningfully defined, under theological noncogntivism the question "Does god exist?" is also completely meaningless as "god" is not meaningfully defined.

Furthermore, in order for something to be truth apt in regards to existence it must be a coherent concept. In order for a concept to be meaningful it must be able to contain Primary Attributes (you don't necessarily have to be able to identify the Primary Attributes of said concept). Under theological noncogntivism (most versions), "god" cannot logically contain Primary Attributes.

Defending Theological Noncogntivism

NOTE: This presupposes that "God" must be limitless, that any concept that is limited cannot be called "god".

First, can a "god" have Primary Attributes?
Well, what is a Primary Attribute?
It is the fundamental characteristics or essence of a thing. What that thing, ultimately, is.
What is important about Primary Attributes is that all other forms of Attributes (secondary, relational, etc.) can only be applied to something that contains Primary Attributes. Something without Primary Attributes can have no attributes at all, and thus us a meaningless concept.

Now, what prevents "god" from having Primary Attributes? The fact that "god" is required to be limitless.
To contain any Primary Attributes is to be limited by those Attribute/within the context of those Attributes.
A limitless being cannot contain Primary Attributes as that entails a paradox.

This alone entails Theological Noncogntivism, but that isn't the only issue.

In order to talk about "god" as a coherent concept it must be objective and well-defined and thus have objective predicated qualities (just like with Primary Attributes, this definition does not necessarily have to be known).

Any objective and well-defined concept must be able to be expressed in the form of a well-ordered expression (again, it does not necessarily have to be known to us) and be non-paradoxical.

Due to a variation of Russel's Paradox, such a concept must be limited by the language it is defined within (otherwise a paradox is entailed). God, having to be unlimited, cannot be limited in such a way, and thus a paradox is entailed.

This means that the "god" concept is not defined in a meaningful way, and thus theological noncogntivism entails.

(credit to KthuluHimself for helping me develop some of this).

The issue is not that "god" is broadly defined (in which is an issue in and of itself), it is that "god" is not meaningfully defined.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Apparently, I'm a theological noncognitivist. ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 6:30:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 5:43:42 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/26/2016 5:18:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I implied that I was taking about a general definition of the word God in the OP when I said "God' is broadly defined. The does not make the concept non-cognitive."
The English language definition is always-already tied to a Judaeo-Christian conception which includes both the Old Testament G-d of omniscience and omnipotence and the humble carpenter Jesus. And then there's Allah who, unlike G-d, never rested when creating the world. And let's not go into Brahma and his many manifestations.

Therefore, considering the above, the onus is on you to pick one of the many definitions. Because the non-cognitivist remains an ignostic until the relevant coordinates are set.

I already raised this challenge in the OP where I said "An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false" where "intelligent designer of the universe" was referring to God.

If something is logically absurd then it's metaphysically impossible to actually conceive of the concept. All metaphysically impossible concepts are non-cognitive. Not all non-cognitive concepts are metaphysically impossible to conceive of. So I think in that sense I agree with you.
Precisely. The virgin birth, for instance, is entirely illogical yet metaphysically conceivable. Although a non-cognitivist would be nonplussed.

How do you define "verifiable?" If it verifiable that 2 " 2 = 4?
Math is different because it is tautological; always-already confirming its validity. What is meant by verifiable is that which passes the test of empirical method. By contrast, rational accounts (in the Kantian sense) can be claimed or supported.

You said "as the divine is not verifiable, there is no conclusion to be drawn from it in argumentation."

So conclusions can't be drawn from arguments if the arguments refer to something that isn't subject to empirical testing?
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 6:37:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 6:30:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I already raised this challenge in the OP where I said "An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false" where "intelligent designer of the universe" was referring to God.
But "intelligent design" doesn't resonate with mainstream Christianity or Judaism. It's more of a specific brand of Protestant Christianity. Some would argue Islam supports this stance, some don't.

So conclusions can't be drawn from arguments if the arguments refer to something that isn't subject to empirical testing?
For the noncognitivists, yes. But they can use descriptive sentences to widen the logical inference -- whatever it may be.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 6:47:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
First, what is Theological Noncogntivism...

In order for something to be truth apt it must be defined in a meaningful way.

Just like the question "Does kjszhglkfsdjgrsdjgn exist?" is completely meaningless as "kjszhglkfsdjgrsdjgn" is not meaningfully defined, under theological noncogntivism the question "Does god exist?" is also completely meaningless as "god" is not meaningfully defined.

P1: If a definition exists for a concept then the concept must be meaningfully defined.

P2: a definition exists for God.

C: God is meaningfully defined.

Furthermore, in order for something to be truth apt in regards to existence it must be a coherent concept. In order for a concept to be meaningful it must be able to contain Primary Attributes (you don't necessarily have to be able to identify the Primary Attributes of said concept). Under theological noncogntivism (most versions), "god" cannot logically contain Primary Attributes.

I'm keeping in mind that you said this doesn't apply to all versions of theological noncognitivism.

Defending Theological Noncogntivism

NOTE: This presupposes that "God" must be limitless, that any concept that is limited cannot be called "god".

Full stop. Define "limitless". Would an unlimited God be able to defy the laws of logic? It seems incoherent that God could be "limitless" in the first place because if something can simultaneously be what it isn't, "limitless" isn't meaningfully defined.

First, can a "god" have Primary Attributes?
Well, what is a Primary Attribute?
It is the fundamental characteristics or essence of a thing. What that thing, ultimately, is.
What is important about Primary Attributes is that all other forms of Attributes (secondary, relational, etc.) can only be applied to something that contains Primary Attributes. Something without Primary Attributes can have no attributes at all, and thus us a meaningless concept.

Now, what prevents "god" from having Primary Attributes? The fact that "god" is required to be limitless.
To contain any Primary Attributes is to be limited by those Attribute/within the context of those Attributes.
A limitless being cannot contain Primary Attributes as that entails a paradox.

This alone entails Theological Noncogntivism, but that isn't the only issue.

In order to talk about "god" as a coherent concept it must be objective and well-defined and thus have objective predicated qualities (just like with Primary Attributes, this definition does not necessarily have to be known).

Any objective and well-defined concept must be able to be expressed in the form of a well-ordered expression (again, it does not necessarily have to be known to us) and be non-paradoxical.

Due to a variation of Russel's Paradox, such a concept must be limited by the language it is defined within (otherwise a paradox is entailed). God, having to be unlimited, cannot be limited in such a way, and thus a paradox is entailed.

This means that the "god" concept is not defined in a meaningful way, and thus theological noncogntivism entails.

(credit to KthuluHimself for helping me develop some of this).

The issue is not that "god" is broadly defined (in which is an issue in and of itself), it is that "god" is not meaningfully defined.

All of this reasoning rests on the assumption that God is defined to be "limitless" which I agree is incoherent (if something that can only defy the laws of logic can be considered "limitless" rather than being considered "limited" by being bound by them.)
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 6:48:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 2:47:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theological non-cognitivism is the position that "God" is not a cognitively meaningful term and therefore the question of whether or not God exists is invalid.

What is meant by "cognitively meaningful" is that the statement must have the ability to be either true or false (or be "truth-apt".) For example "Huzzah for Michael!" is not a cognitively meaningful statement because it can't be true or false. It's just an expression of approval.

"God" is broadly defined. The does not make the concept non-cognitive.

God cannot be empirically tested for. This does not make the concept invalid.


"An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false.

If you disagree let's hear it.

We humans are capable of formulating questions that we are not capable of answering by any means available to us. This doesn't mean there is no answer. It just means that our intellect and physiology are too limited to ascertain the answer. And this is the case with most modern concepts of "God". The existence of "God" remains a conceptual phenomena, for now, and the foreseeable future.

This does not invalidate the question. But it does limit the logical reasons for asking it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 7:09:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 6:37:41 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/26/2016 6:30:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I already raised this challenge in the OP where I said "An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false" where "intelligent designer of the universe" was referring to God.
But "intelligent design" doesn't resonate with mainstream Christianity or Judaism. It's more of a specific brand of Protestant Christianity. Some would argue Islam supports this stance, some don't.

But it's not a prerequisite that whatever the definition of God is, it must resonate with mainstream Christianity or Judaism. I also believe that "an intelligent designer of the universe exists" would resonate very well with them. If you asked them if that statement was true they would say yes.

So conclusions can't be drawn from arguments if the arguments refer to something that isn't subject to empirical testing?
For the noncognitivists, yes. But they can use descriptive sentences to widen the logical inference -- whatever it may be.

Major premise: All M are P.
Minor premise: All S are M.
Conclusion: All S are P

Deductive reasoning that arrived at a true conclusion without recourse to empirical testing.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 7:39:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 7:09:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
But it's not a prerequisite that whatever the definition of God is, it must resonate with mainstream Christianity or Judaism. I also believe that "an intelligent designer of the universe exists" would resonate very well with them. If you asked them if that statement was true they would say yes.
What you are overlooking is the addressee's preconception. And, if I could lend myself to that function, onto-theologically, I'd reject creation as an "intelligent design." Instead, as a Pauline Christian, I would introduce the ambiguity of a creator who sacrificially abandons his creation, his power, his all-encompassing wisdom, his life, and lives on in the spirit of believers (until the end of the creation). It isn't an "intelligent design" because God's idiosyncratic destiny is itself embedded in the mystery.

I would view that as a strong onto-theological foundation for ethics and social mores. But I fail to see how it would help a noncognitivist, who would likely opt for an ignostic turn -- and be right in so doing.

Major premise: All M are P.
Minor premise: All S are M.
Conclusion: All S are P

Deductive reasoning that arrived at a true conclusion without recourse to empirical testing.
Well played. Yes. But I would add the requirement that P is (at least passively) verifiable in order to carry the inference to its conclusion.

Could you give me an example that would simultaneously take the addressee's point of reference into account?
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2016 4:10:36 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Depends on what is meant by "non-cognitivism" and what is meant by "meaning" (despite the irony of it).

There could be some "meaning" beyond what humans can ascribe to it, but I do not think any descriptive meaning is possible considering humans' inability to perceive without making certain assumptions like time and spatial reference frames.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2016 8:49:33 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 2:47:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
God cannot be empirically tested for. This does not make the concept invalid.
If you disagree let's hear it.

Ben, please suppose that a disembodied voice talks to you, and others can independently confirm that it does so. One of the things it tells you is that it can perform great wonders, which you would call a miracle, and it demonstrates some.

Given that, please nominate the criteria by which it could be independently established that:

1) Any wonder shown is actually a metaphysical phenomenon, meaning: it cannot be reproduced by natural engineering, including engineering that you have not yet observed;
2) Any being capable of awing you with wonders is nevertheless incapable of lying to you undetectably; and with that in mind, how it could be independently verified that:
3) This particular being created our universe in entirety;
4) It did so intentionally and alone;
5) It was not itself created by an even greater being, and either deluded or lying to you about it; and finally that
6) It is not only worthy of your own lifelong personal slavish submission and obedience, but also entraining your children and all their descendants to that purpose also.

Now, after all that testing (however you do it), suppose you met a second disembodied voice able to offer precisely the same demonstrations, yet claiming that the first was lying and should not be heeded. How could it be independently determined which, if either, was telling the truth?

Unless you can answer these questions in full, I believe you will have shown that no revelatory claim of theological knowledge is valid, or ever can be valid.

Since it is permanently invalid, it can be instantly dismissed.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2016 4:48:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/27/2016 8:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/26/2016 2:47:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

This is sidestepping the issue.

"An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false.

Agree or disagree?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2016 5:49:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/27/2016 8:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/26/2016 2:47:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
God cannot be empirically tested for. This does not make the concept invalid.
If you disagree let's hear it.

Ben, please suppose that a disembodied voice talks to you, and others can independently confirm that it does so. One of the things it tells you is that it can perform great wonders, which you would call a miracle, and it demonstrates some.

Given that, please nominate the criteria by which it could be independently established that:

1) Any wonder shown is actually a metaphysical phenomenon, meaning: it cannot be reproduced by natural engineering, including engineering that you have not yet observed;
2) Any being capable of awing you with wonders is nevertheless incapable of lying to you undetectably; and with that in mind, how it could be independently verified that:
3) This particular being created our universe in entirety;
4) It did so intentionally and alone;
5) It was not itself created by an even greater being, and either deluded or lying to you about it; and finally that
6) It is not only worthy of your own lifelong personal slavish submission and obedience, but also entraining your children and all their descendants to that purpose also.

Now, after all that testing (however you do it), suppose you met a second disembodied voice able to offer precisely the same demonstrations, yet claiming that the first was lying and should not be heeded. How could it be independently determined which, if either, was telling the truth?

Unless you can answer these questions in full, I believe you will have shown that no revelatory claim of theological knowledge is valid, or ever can be valid.

Since it is permanently invalid, it can be instantly dismissed.

If something is beyond the scope of validation, it cannot be invalidated, either. Your comment is equivalent to saying we cannot validate the existence of alien life on some unknown planet many, many light years from Earth; therefore, we have invalidated it.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2016 7:09:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/27/2016 4:48:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2016 8:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/26/2016 2:47:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

This is sidestepping the issue.

"An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false.

Agree or disagree?

Ben, are you now a deist?

If not, then it is dishonest to call a putative designer or creator of this universe a theistic god unless you can demonstrate the validity of revelation and the moral imperative to worship it.

Please note that deism has no theology. Your contention isn't that deism is valid, but that theological non-cognitivism is nonsense.

So my questions are not only relevant, they are key to you demonstrating the validity of theology. Therefore, please answer them.

On the broader matter of whether the question of a created/designed universe is valid, it's fine to talk about that, but not by you in this thread. Here it is a tedious, dishonest, disingenuous distraction.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2016 7:11:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/27/2016 5:49:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/27/2016 8:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Suppose that a disembodied voice talks to you, and others can independently confirm that it does so. One of the things it tells you is that it can perform great wonders, which you would call a miracle, and it demonstrates some.

Given that, please nominate the criteria by which it could be independently established that:

1) Any wonder shown is actually a metaphysical phenomenon, meaning: it cannot be reproduced by natural engineering, including engineering that you have not yet observed;
2) Any being capable of awing you with wonders is nevertheless incapable of lying to you undetectably; and with that in mind, how it could be independently verified that:
3) This particular being created our universe in entirety;
4) It did so intentionally and alone;
5) It was not itself created by an even greater being, and either deluded or lying to you about it; and finally that
6) It is not only worthy of your own lifelong personal slavish submission and obedience, but also entraining your children and all their descendants to that purpose also.

Now, after all that testing (however you do it), suppose you met a second disembodied voice able to offer precisely the same demonstrations, yet claiming that the first was lying and should not be heeded. How could it be independently determined which, if either, was telling the truth?

Unless you can answer these questions in full, I believe you will have shown that no revelatory claim of theological knowledge is valid, or ever can be valid.

Since it is permanently invalid, it can be instantly dismissed.

If something is beyond the scope of validation, it cannot be invalidated, either.

Anthony, what do you imagine 'valid' means, and why is it important to validate propositions and not simply verify them?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2016 11:48:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/27/2016 7:11:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/27/2016 5:49:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/27/2016 8:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Suppose that a disembodied voice talks to you, and others can independently confirm that it does so. One of the things it tells you is that it can perform great wonders, which you would call a miracle, and it demonstrates some.

Given that, please nominate the criteria by which it could be independently established that:

1) Any wonder shown is actually a metaphysical phenomenon, meaning: it cannot be reproduced by natural engineering, including engineering that you have not yet observed;
2) Any being capable of awing you with wonders is nevertheless incapable of lying to you undetectably; and with that in mind, how it could be independently verified that:
3) This particular being created our universe in entirety;
4) It did so intentionally and alone;
5) It was not itself created by an even greater being, and either deluded or lying to you about it; and finally that
6) It is not only worthy of your own lifelong personal slavish submission and obedience, but also entraining your children and all their descendants to that purpose also.

Now, after all that testing (however you do it), suppose you met a second disembodied voice able to offer precisely the same demonstrations, yet claiming that the first was lying and should not be heeded. How could it be independently determined which, if either, was telling the truth?

Unless you can answer these questions in full, I believe you will have shown that no revelatory claim of theological knowledge is valid, or ever can be valid.

Since it is permanently invalid, it can be instantly dismissed.

If something is beyond the scope of validation, it cannot be invalidated, either.

Anthony, what do you imagine 'valid' means, and why is it important to validate propositions and not simply verify them?

I believe validation means a claim which fits into the framework of a scientific model.

This is the point at which I believe is your biggest blind spot. You put too much faith in a chosen paradigm.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2016 7:35:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/27/2016 7:09:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/27/2016 4:48:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2016 8:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/26/2016 2:47:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

This is sidestepping the issue.

"An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false.

Agree or disagree?

Ben, are you now a deist?

If not, then it is dishonest to call a putative designer or creator of this universe a theistic god unless you can demonstrate the validity of revelation and the moral imperative to worship it.

Please note that deism has no theology. Your contention isn't that deism is valid, but that theological non-cognitivism is nonsense.

So my questions are not only relevant, they are key to you demonstrating the validity of theology. Therefore, please answer them.

On the broader matter of whether the question of a created/designed universe is valid, it's fine to talk about that, but not by you in this thread. Here it is a tedious, dishonest, disingenuous distraction.

"Theological noncognitivism is the argument that religious language " specifically, words such as 'God' " are not cognitively meaningful."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Theological non-cognitivism isn't so much a focus on theology as it is on just the definition of "God" used in theism.

Deism is defined as "belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it."
http://www.dictionary.com...

Theism is broadly defined as "the belief that God exists or that many gods exist."
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

A narrower definition of theism is "belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

So deism and theism aren't mutually exclusive. Only when they're used in a more narrow sense.

The point in creating this thread was to argue that "God" is cognitively meaningful.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2016 7:36:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/27/2016 11:48:50 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/27/2016 7:11:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/27/2016 5:49:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/27/2016 8:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Suppose that a disembodied voice talks to you, and others can independently confirm that it does so. One of the things it tells you is that it can perform great wonders, which you would call a miracle, and it demonstrates some.

Given that, please nominate the criteria by which it could be independently established that:

1) Any wonder shown is actually a metaphysical phenomenon, meaning: it cannot be reproduced by natural engineering, including engineering that you have not yet observed;
2) Any being capable of awing you with wonders is nevertheless incapable of lying to you undetectably; and with that in mind, how it could be independently verified that:
3) This particular being created our universe in entirety;
4) It did so intentionally and alone;
5) It was not itself created by an even greater being, and either deluded or lying to you about it; and finally that
6) It is not only worthy of your own lifelong personal slavish submission and obedience, but also entraining your children and all their descendants to that purpose also.

Now, after all that testing (however you do it), suppose you met a second disembodied voice able to offer precisely the same demonstrations, yet claiming that the first was lying and should not be heeded. How could it be independently determined which, if either, was telling the truth?

Unless you can answer these questions in full, I believe you will have shown that no revelatory claim of theological knowledge is valid, or ever can be valid.

Since it is permanently invalid, it can be instantly dismissed.

If something is beyond the scope of validation, it cannot be invalidated, either.

Anthony, what do you imagine 'valid' means, and why is it important to validate propositions and not simply verify them?

I believe validation means a claim which fits into the framework of a scientific model.

Not quite, and I note you skirted the second question. You're out of your depth, Anthony.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2016 8:32:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/28/2016 7:35:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2016 7:09:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/27/2016 4:48:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2016 8:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please nominate the criteria by which it could be independently established that:
1) Any wonder shown is actually a metaphysical phenomenon, meaning: it cannot be reproduced by natural engineering, including engineering that you have not yet observed;
2) Any being capable of awing you with wonders is nevertheless incapable of lying to you undetectably; and with that in mind, how it could be independently verified that:
3) This particular being created our universe in entirety;
4) It did so intentionally and alone;
5) It was not itself created by an even greater being, and either deluded or lying to you about it; and finally that
6) It is not only worthy of your own lifelong personal slavish submission and obedience, but also entraining your children and all their descendants to that purpose also.
Now, after all that testing (however you do it), suppose you met a second disembodied voice able to offer precisely the same demonstrations, yet claiming that the first was lying and should not be heeded. How could it be independently determined which, if either, was telling the truth?

This is sidestepping the issue.

"An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false.

Agree or disagree?

Ben, are you now a deist?

If not, then it is dishonest to call a putative designer or creator of this universe a theistic god unless you can demonstrate the validity of revelation and the moral imperative to worship it.

Please note that deism has no theology. Your contention isn't that deism is valid, but that theological non-cognitivism is nonsense.

So my questions are not only relevant, they are key to you demonstrating the validity of theology. Therefore, please answer them.

"Theological noncognitivism is the argument that religious language " specifically, words such as 'God' " are not cognitively meaningful."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

The idea of a cat is cognitively meaningful because we can agree to whatever confidence we like, what is and is not a cat, a cat's miaow, a cat's whiskers, a cat's paw-print.

Yet even though it's a fabulous animal, a unicorn is also cognitively meaningful because we can agree on what a unicorn looks like, how it may and may not act, how to tell it apart from other animals, and where, if it existed, we might find it. In fact, it's because we can ground our cognition in shared observation that we know there aren't any.

But you are making your hasty and dishonest evasion of my questions above precisely because even if I grant you a created universe and every improbable wonder you could want, you still cannot tell me how to discern whether they are truly miracles, and are truly God's. In other words, you know that you and the authors of scriptural revelations haven't a hope of recognising that which you and all those authors claim to be sure exists, and cannot bring yourself to admit it.

Consequently, it's not just that your conviction is misplaced, the entire contention is useless for ever producing truth, accuracy, independent confidence, or knowledge.

Ergo, no statement about the objectivity of God can be a truth-statement. If our purpose is to progress knowledge and accuracy, theological statements about the god of Abraham are not and never shall be fit for purpose. Setting aside the fact that Christian scholars consider their own scriptures largely inauthentic (therefore making claims of revelation, miracle and canon fraudulent), the whole epistemological foundation of revelatory theology is irrecoverably vacuous, no matter how many revelations and miracles we grant it.

Being agnostic on a vacuous proposition propagated by the dishonest and deluded is a pointless waste of thought. We don't claim to have no knowledge on that which proponents themselves can never know: it's sufficient to tell them they're talking twaddle and to stop wasting your time.

And you yourself are having troubles with your own cognition, Ben, because when trying to talk about evidence and knowledge of God, you cannot stay theist and own the evidentiary burden of your theology: you have to pretend you're Deist, pretend you have no theology to ever acquit, and resort to appeals to ignorance about the universe -- as though a created universe would get you any closer to verifying a theology you can never verify with anything anyway.

Case Dismissed, Ben, with prejudice. Your own dishonesty is your own most damning evidence.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2016 9:27:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
DDO religion forum is something that is okay in small doses. Here is my small dose, and my position is that non-cognitivism is a critical first-issue to address especially when talking or arguing about moral and theologial issues.

Theological non-cognitivism is the position that "God" is not a cognitively meaningful term and therefore the question of whether or not God exists is invalid.

This is an outcome of theological non-cognitivism, but not what it is. A more precise definition of theological non-cognitivism is simply the first half of your statement:

'Theological non-cognitivism is the position that "God" is not a cognitively meaningful term'

The general wiki for example, makes no reference the existence of God until later in the arcticle.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

The same is the case for the Plato encyclopedia:
http://plato.stanford.edu...

Therefore, satting the position as something which directly addresses the existence of God is attacking a position that many non-cognitivists do not hold, and is irrelevant to several other considerations that non-cognitivism yields.

For example, my personal position is a pragmatic positon of waiting for the theist to objectively and non-circularly define their God before addressing the existence of such. There are plenty of definitions of God that some people adhere to that discussion of the existence of is coherent. However there are plenty that are not, thus, non-cognitivism applies so these.

What is meant by "cognitively meaningful" is that the statement must have the ability to be either true or false (or be "truth-apt".)* For example "Huzzah for Michael!" is not a cognitively meaningful statement because it can't be true or false. It's just an expression of approval.

* You got a source for this? Because this is outright false. Unless we are to take non-propositions as not possibly being cognitively meaningful (since only propositions can be true of false).

E.g. 'Apple' can be cognitively meaningful. 'An apple is on my table tonight' can be cognitively meaningful, wheras only one of these statements can possibly have a 'true' or 'false' value assigned to it.

The rest of your argument (which I do not see as an argument) deends on these being true, so, it seems that your declaration of theological non-cognitivism is based on a strawman - which is resulting from not understanding the position, nor its philosophy that you are attacking.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2016 3:43:20 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/28/2016 7:36:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/27/2016 11:48:50 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/27/2016 7:11:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/27/2016 5:49:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/27/2016 8:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Suppose that a disembodied voice talks to you, and others can independently confirm that it does so. One of the things it tells you is that it can perform great wonders, which you would call a miracle, and it demonstrates some.

Given that, please nominate the criteria by which it could be independently established that:

1) Any wonder shown is actually a metaphysical phenomenon, meaning: it cannot be reproduced by natural engineering, including engineering that you have not yet observed;
2) Any being capable of awing you with wonders is nevertheless incapable of lying to you undetectably; and with that in mind, how it could be independently verified that:
3) This particular being created our universe in entirety;
4) It did so intentionally and alone;
5) It was not itself created by an even greater being, and either deluded or lying to you about it; and finally that
6) It is not only worthy of your own lifelong personal slavish submission and obedience, but also entraining your children and all their descendants to that purpose also.

Now, after all that testing (however you do it), suppose you met a second disembodied voice able to offer precisely the same demonstrations, yet claiming that the first was lying and should not be heeded. How could it be independently determined which, if either, was telling the truth?

Unless you can answer these questions in full, I believe you will have shown that no revelatory claim of theological knowledge is valid, or ever can be valid.

Since it is permanently invalid, it can be instantly dismissed.

If something is beyond the scope of validation, it cannot be invalidated, either.

Anthony, what do you imagine 'valid' means, and why is it important to validate propositions and not simply verify them?

I believe validation means a claim which fits into the framework of a scientific model.

Not quite, and I note you skirted the second question. You're out of your depth, Anthony.

Ok.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2016 1:02:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/28/2016 9:27:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
DDO religion forum is something that is okay in small doses. Here is my small dose, and my position is that non-cognitivism is a critical first-issue to address especially when talking or arguing about moral and theologial issues.

Theological non-cognitivism is the position that "God" is not a cognitively meaningful term and therefore the question of whether or not God exists is invalid.

This is an outcome of theological non-cognitivism, but not what it is. A more precise definition of theological non-cognitivism is simply the first half of your statement:

'Theological non-cognitivism is the position that "God" is not a cognitively meaningful term'

The general wiki for example, makes no reference the existence of God until later in the arcticle.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

The same is the case for the Plato encyclopedia:
http://plato.stanford.edu...

Therefore, satting the position as something which directly addresses the existence of God is attacking a position that many non-cognitivists do not hold, and is irrelevant to several other considerations that non-cognitivism yields.

For example, my personal position is a pragmatic positon of waiting for the theist to objectively and non-circularly define their God before addressing the existence of such. There are plenty of definitions of God that some people adhere to that discussion of the existence of is coherent. However there are plenty that are not, thus, non-cognitivism applies so these.

What is meant by "cognitively meaningful" is that the statement must have the ability to be either true or false (or be "truth-apt".)* For example "Huzzah for Michael!" is not a cognitively meaningful statement because it can't be true or false. It's just an expression of approval.

* You got a source for this? Because this is outright false. Unless we are to take non-propositions as not possibly being cognitively meaningful (since only propositions can be true of false).

E.g. 'Apple' can be cognitively meaningful. 'An apple is on my table tonight' can be cognitively meaningful, wheras only one of these statements can possibly have a 'true' or 'false' value assigned to it.

The rest of your argument (which I do not see as an argument) deends on these being true, so, it seems that your declaration of theological non-cognitivism is based on a strawman - which is resulting from not understanding the position, nor its philosophy that you are attacking.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the definition of God or the various metaphysical attributes He is given such as omnipresent, omnipotent, creator,master of the universe because the meaning these definitions convey are understood. They are cognitively impressed on our imagination.

How they are received can be measured by the individuals personal experience and development. For example describing the concept of the mega rich to a poor average person can only tease the persons imagination of extreme wealth to a limited degree, he cannot possible conceptualizer the true magnitude of wealth as in mega rich because he has nothing to associate it with having been deprived all his life.

Similarly, religion attempts to convey the other worldness and transcendental nature of spiritual experience and the larger consciousness beyond the physical and material world. They may not be evidenced by science but they are cognitively real to the person experiencing it.

Neuroscientists have found the brain can be induced to produce these metaphysical experiences that are the subject of non-cognitivism by stimulation certain parts of the brain. The same areas that are the seat of creative thinking in the brain. So non-cognitivism is really a diminishing of cognitive function and not just a rhetorical proposition. We are certainly not all created equal in our cognitive ability of the sublime.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2016 1:05:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/28/2016 8:32:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/28/2016 7:35:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2016 7:09:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/27/2016 4:48:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2016 8:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please nominate the criteria by which it could be independently established that:
1) Any wonder shown is actually a metaphysical phenomenon, meaning: it cannot be reproduced by natural engineering, including engineering that you have not yet observed;
2) Any being capable of awing you with wonders is nevertheless incapable of lying to you undetectably; and with that in mind, how it could be independently verified that:
3) This particular being created our universe in entirety;
4) It did so intentionally and alone;
5) It was not itself created by an even greater being, and either deluded or lying to you about it; and finally that
6) It is not only worthy of your own lifelong personal slavish submission and obedience, but also entraining your children and all their descendants to that purpose also.
Now, after all that testing (however you do it), suppose you met a second disembodied voice able to offer precisely the same demonstrations, yet claiming that the first was lying and should not be heeded. How could it be independently determined which, if either, was telling the truth?

This is sidestepping the issue.

"An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false.

Agree or disagree?

Ben, are you now a deist?

If not, then it is dishonest to call a putative designer or creator of this universe a theistic god unless you can demonstrate the validity of revelation and the moral imperative to worship it.

Please note that deism has no theology. Your contention isn't that deism is valid, but that theological non-cognitivism is nonsense.

So my questions are not only relevant, they are key to you demonstrating the validity of theology. Therefore, please answer them.

"Theological noncognitivism is the argument that religious language " specifically, words such as 'God' " are not cognitively meaningful."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

The idea of a cat is cognitively meaningful because we can agree to whatever confidence we like, what is and is not a cat, a cat's miaow, a cat's whiskers, a cat's paw-print.

Yet even though it's a fabulous animal, a unicorn is also cognitively meaningful because we can agree on what a unicorn looks like, how it may and may not act, how to tell it apart from other animals, and where, if it existed, we might find it. In fact, it's because we can ground our cognition in shared observation that we know there aren't any.

But you are making your hasty and dishonest evasion of my questions above precisely because even if I grant you a created universe and every improbable wonder you could want, you still cannot tell me how to discern whether they are truly miracles, and are truly God's. In other words, you know that you and the authors of scriptural revelations haven't a hope of recognising that which you and all those authors claim to be sure exists, and cannot bring yourself to admit it.

Consequently, it's not just that your conviction is misplaced, the entire contention is useless for ever producing truth, accuracy, independent confidence, or knowledge.

Ergo, no statement about the objectivity of God can be a truth-statement. If our purpose is to progress knowledge and accuracy, theological statements about the god of Abraham are not and never shall be fit for purpose. Setting aside the fact that Christian scholars consider their own scriptures largely inauthentic (therefore making claims of revelation, miracle and canon fraudulent), the whole epistemological foundation of revelatory theology is irrecoverably vacuous, no matter how many revelations and miracles we grant it.

Being agnostic on a vacuous proposition propagated by the dishonest and deluded is a pointless waste of thought. We don't claim to have no knowledge on that which proponents themselves can never know: it's sufficient to tell them they're talking twaddle and to stop wasting your time.

And you yourself are having troubles with your own cognition, Ben, because when trying to talk about evidence and knowledge of God, you cannot stay theist and own the evidentiary burden of your theology: you have to pretend you're Deist, pretend you have no theology to ever acquit, and resort to appeals to ignorance about the universe -- as though a created universe would get you any closer to verifying a theology you can never verify with anything anyway.

Case Dismissed, Ben, with prejudice. Your own dishonesty is your own most damning evidence.

Do we see some similarities in our positions, RuvDraba?

I don't think anyone has a problem with the definition of God or the various metaphysical attributes He is given such as omnipresent, omnipotent, creator,master of the universe because the meaning these definitions convey are understood. They are cognitively impressed on our imagination.

How they are received can be measured by the individuals personal experience and development. For example describing the concept of the mega rich to a poor average person can only tease the persons imagination of extreme wealth to a limited degree, he cannot possible conceptualizer the true magnitude of wealth as in mega rich because he has nothing to associate it with having been deprived all his life.

Similarly, religion attempts to convey the other worldness and transcendental nature of spiritual experience and the larger consciousness beyond the physical and material world. They may not be evidenced by science but they are cognitively real to the person experiencing it.

Neuroscientists have found the brain can be induced to produce these metaphysical experiences that are the subject of non-cognitivism by stimulation certain parts of the brain. The same areas that are the seat of creative thinking in the brain. So non-cognitivism is really a diminishing of cognitive function and not just a rhetorical proposition. We are certainly not all created equal in our cognitive ability of the sublime.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2016 4:54:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/28/2016 8:32:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/28/2016 7:35:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2016 7:09:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/27/2016 4:48:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2016 8:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please nominate the criteria by which it could be independently established that:
1) Any wonder shown is actually a metaphysical phenomenon, meaning: it cannot be reproduced by natural engineering, including engineering that you have not yet observed;
2) Any being capable of awing you with wonders is nevertheless incapable of lying to you undetectably; and with that in mind, how it could be independently verified that:
3) This particular being created our universe in entirety;
4) It did so intentionally and alone;
5) It was not itself created by an even greater being, and either deluded or lying to you about it; and finally that
6) It is not only worthy of your own lifelong personal slavish submission and obedience, but also entraining your children and all their descendants to that purpose also.
Now, after all that testing (however you do it), suppose you met a second disembodied voice able to offer precisely the same demonstrations, yet claiming that the first was lying and should not be heeded. How could it be independently determined which, if either, was telling the truth?

This is sidestepping the issue.

"An intelligent designer of the universe exists" is a meaningful concept that can either be true or false.

Agree or disagree?

Ben, are you now a deist?

If not, then it is dishonest to call a putative designer or creator of this universe a theistic god unless you can demonstrate the validity of revelation and the moral imperative to worship it.

Please note that deism has no theology. Your contention isn't that deism is valid, but that theological non-cognitivism is nonsense.

So my questions are not only relevant, they are key to you demonstrating the validity of theology. Therefore, please answer them.

"Theological noncognitivism is the argument that religious language " specifically, words such as 'God' " are not cognitively meaningful."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I think this is a misunderstanding. I'm not pushing any given theology. I'm not Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. I don't believe in revelatory knowledge. I don't believe that God intervenes in reality.

The only reason I'm not a deist is because I believe we have moral obligations. If we truly have moral obligations, this requires that God still has an active role with his creation.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2016 5:23:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/28/2016 9:27:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
DDO religion forum is something that is okay in small doses. Here is my small dose, and my position is that non-cognitivism is a critical first-issue to address especially when talking or arguing about moral and theologial issues.

Ok.

Theological non-cognitivism is the position that "God" is not a cognitively meaningful term and therefore the question of whether or not God exists is invalid.

This is an outcome of theological non-cognitivism, but not what it is. A more precise definition of theological non-cognitivism is simply the first half of your statement:

'Theological non-cognitivism is the position that "God" is not a cognitively meaningful term'

The general wiki for example, makes no reference the existence of God until later in the arcticle.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

The same is the case for the Plato encyclopedia:
http://plato.stanford.edu...

Therefore, satting the position as something which directly addresses the existence of God is attacking a position that many non-cognitivists do not hold, and is irrelevant to several other considerations that non-cognitivism yields.

For example, my personal position is a pragmatic positon of waiting for the theist to objectively and non-circularly define their God before addressing the existence of such. There are plenty of definitions of God that some people adhere to that discussion of the existence of is coherent. However there are plenty that are not, thus, non-cognitivism applies so these.

So, basically, since "God" is so broadly defined, the theist must provide a coherent definition of God before discussing it further. Since there are also incoherent definitions of God, the default position is to assume theological non-cognitivism. Correct?

What is meant by "cognitively meaningful" is that the statement must have the ability to be either true or false (or be "truth-apt".)* For example "Huzzah for Michael!" is not a cognitively meaningful statement because it can't be true or false. It's just an expression of approval.

* You got a source for this? Because this is outright false. Unless we are to take non-propositions as not possibly being cognitively meaningful (since only propositions can be true of false).

"Ethical non-cognitivism is the view that moral judgments are neither true nor false since they are not 'truth-apt,' meaning they are not the kind of utterances that can have a truth-value"
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

If something is not cognitively meaningful it is considered non-cognitive. Ethical "non-cognitivism" is considered "non-cognitive" by virtue of not having the capacity to be either true or false. Accordingly, what is meant by "cognitively meaningful" is that the statement must have the ability to be either true or false (or be "truth-apt".) Anyway, if this isn't the true meaning of cognitively meaningful this is where the logic behind my statement came from.

E.g. 'Apple' can be cognitively meaningful. 'An apple is on my table tonight' can be cognitively meaningful, wheras only one of these statements can possibly have a 'true' or 'false' value assigned to it.

This makes sense but it still seems to conflict with the definition of non-cognitive.

"Non-cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences do not express propositions (i.e., statements) and thus cannot be true or false (they are not truth-apt)"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...


The rest of your argument (which I do not see as an argument) deends on these being true, so, it seems that your declaration of theological non-cognitivism is based on a strawman - which is resulting from not understanding the position, nor its philosophy that you are attacking.