The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept

[Captain Scarlet]

I never said that God and Humans occupied the same time space To dismiss the argument on those grounds is of course fallatious.

God is to deity as Man is to homo sapien. Try again.

Question begging Fr0ds, it is you who needs to come up with a response which isn't fallacious. Assuming 'Deityhood' (and by extension supernaturalism) to demonstrate the Deity (and by extension supernaturalism) isnt a convincing rejoinder. Fail and try again.

The word Deity has no positively identified primary attribute, just as the word God does not. To make matters worse neither word has an identified mechanism by which the primary attribute is instantiated in reality, they are just left as mysterious and thus have no explanatory power. In the argument I gave specific meanings, and argued that the secondary and relational attributes (which in my view are projected on these words in an attempt to give them meaning by Theists) are meaningless if there is no primary attribute.

Lets take another example:

We can test this easily. Ask someone what god is and they will describe secondary or relational attributes, or just shrug. But there will be limited consistency. Ask someone what a shirt is. By and large they will describe it as some form of gentlemans garment worn about there upper body.

1) A gentlemans garment worn about a mans upper body is a shirt (primary attribute) The metaphysical nature of the shirt is as an existent, in that it has the primary attribute of being a shirt, and is something which is capable of possessing colour as a secondary attribute. The shirt is brown (secondary attribute) and this shirt can be worn by a man with a 38' chest (relational attribute). We can all agree is meaningful.

2) The god (?) is brown (secondary attribute) and can be worn by a man with a 38' chest (relational attribute). We can all agree is meaningless, but maybe not for the same reason. I am arguing that since the primary attribute of the term god is unidentified. At best, theists have postulated that a god is an immaterial mind, this description simply tells us what a god is not, not what a god is, and thus there is no connection established between a gods metaphysical nature and any secondary attributes. If a terms primary attribute is unidentified, we cannot say what attributes can be applied to it or not applied to it, because we are unable to say what it is that it may possess any particular characteristics at all. Consequently, this statement is meaningless.

3) The god (?) is incorporeal (secondary attribute) and is the creator of the universe (relational attribute). We can't all agree that this meaningless but it is no more meaningful than 2) above, under the argument I have given and that hasn’t been dismantled.

Now we can either drop our jaw go wow and revel in the magical, the mystical the, unknowability of god (meaninglessness). An argument that expresses the view that god is so great he is above all this poking and prodding into his very impossibility. Or we could accept that if something is meaningless, it is literally meaningless and doesn’t deserve its place in rational discourse. If the former argument holds then theism and supernaturalism reduces to merely an appeal to magic, on a par with ghosts and goblins and the like. If the latter argument holds then the narrow theism as envisaged by Christianity dissolves away and we can move onto other theist concepts and examine them (pantheism for example).