(July 12, 2010 at 12:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:When you define God as "creator of the universe" then yes

Well since that's how God is usually defined (or at least very often) then that's the definition I'm talking about. And the one I disbelieve in. Hence why I'm an atheist.

Definitions are people-made by people writing them in dictionaries. You can define what you like. It's just usually common sense to go by the dictionary definition and not make up your own personal ones is all. Why must defining be limited to things that already have evidence of their existence? There are no rules that say you're not allowed to define something that you have merely speculated. Just because evidence hasn't been found for something doesn't mean you can't define it. The point is the thing you are defining lacks evidence so it's irrational to believe in it.

EvF

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. Make up any definition you want for any word, it doesn't matter to me. Anyone can do as they wish, though taking advantage of this may cause very few people to understand you.
That's not the point. Definitions are not the point. The point is where the definitions come from. Languages always provide some limitation, but that's not the point either, nor is the fact that definitions and words are man-made the point. Yes, they are man-made, but the words have meaning when they actually apply to what we know exists.

If I just make up a word, like grobidorf, and then say it is a type of dragon which lives beneath the surface of the Sun this is meaningless because I have never observed or detected a dragon living beneath the Sun's surface, and it is impossible to verify. If I make up another word, God, and say it created the entire universe, this, too, is meaningless because such an assumption is impossible to verify. There is a difference between making up a word, such as "chair" and applying it to something we recognize, and making up a word or concept that has no basis in reality.

Quote:If I just make up a word, like grobidorf, and then say it is a type of dragon which lives beneath the surface of the Sun this is meaningless because I have never observed or detected a dragon living beneath the Sun's surface, and it is impossible to verify. If I make up another word, God, and say it created the entire universe, this, too, is meaningless because such an assumption is impossible to verify.

Why are either of those meaningless? Something unverifiable is just something unverifiable isn't it? How does unverifiable=meaningless? If it's unverifiable then it's irrational to believe in and hence why I'm an atheist... but just because that something (God in this case) is unverifiable doesn't mean it has no meaning. If the concept of God= the creator of the universe and I disbelieve that because it's unverifiable... then that means based on what that means and the lack of evidence for it, I disbelieve it. If it meant something different entirely that was verifiable and had evidence then I'd believe it. The fact that whether it's unverifiable or not has meaning over whether I believe it or not (and the fact that the definition of "God" and "verifiable" and "unverifiable" all have meaning in the sense that those words... mean things) shows it isn't meaningless. Unverifiable is unverifiable, verifiable is verifiable - what's meaningless about either? They're both equally meaningful - one means something is verifiable the other means something is unverifiable. They both mean different things and hence there is meaning in both cases.

What am I missing here?

EvF

(July 12, 2010 at 5:14 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Knight... being an atheist doesn't require any knowledge of God.

All I know of God is the concept of a "deity" as with all I know of the Easter Bunny is the concept of "The Easter Bunny" - I claim no knowledge of the Easter Bunny... I just reject its existence. As with God.

Nice example EvF. The point is that with that you don't really reject any specific Easter Bunny at all. I'd say that you simply reject the soundness of the proposition on basis of lack of definition, coherence and meaning. If you were told that there lives a guy called Easter Bunny you would have to re-evaluate your position. You reject the soundness of the proposition, not the existence of any definition of Easter Bunny.

(July 12, 2010 at 1:20 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(July 12, 2010 at 5:14 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Knight... being an atheist doesn't require any knowledge of God.

All I know of God is the concept of a "deity" as with all I know of the Easter Bunny is the concept of "The Easter Bunny" - I claim no knowledge of the Easter Bunny... I just reject its existence. As with God.

Nice example EvF. The point is that with that you don't really reject any specific Easter Bunny at all. I'd say that you simply reject the soundness of the proposition on basis of lack of definition, coherence and meaning. If you were told that there lives a guy called Easter Bunny you would have to re-evaluate your position. You reject the soundness of the proposition, not the existence of any definition of Easter Bunny.

This is what I was trying to get at (at least one of the points), thank you for saying it a lot better than I did.

(July 12, 2010 at 1:20 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Nice example EvF. The point is that with that you don't really reject any specific Easter Bunny at all. I'd say that you simply reject the soundness of the proposition on basis of lack of definition, coherence and meaning.

It's still a definition that has some meaning, and I can still reject it based on lack of evidence. As I said above... if it's unverifiable so what? That doesn't mean it can't be defined as something unverifiable. Unverifiable doesn't mean undefinable. The fact its definition for the Easter Bunny is unverifiable and there therefore can't be any evidence to support it is why I reject and disbelieve it.

Quote: If you were told that there lives a guy called Easter Bunny you would have to re-evaluate your position.

That would be a different definition.

Quote: You reject the soundness of the proposition, not the existence of any definition of Easter Bunny.

I reject the existence of the definition of the Easter bunny... the definition doesn't have to be perfectly clear... because no definition is - you can always add more detail.

EvF

(July 12, 2010 at 1:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(July 12, 2010 at 1:20 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Nice example EvF. The point is that with that you don't really reject any specific Easter Bunny at all. I'd say that you simply reject the soundness of the proposition on basis of lack of definition, coherence and meaning.

It's still a definition that has some meaning,..

Please observe that no meaning was stated with it. All meaning you ascribe to it is atributed to it by you. In fact you're simply guessing what it could mean based on prior experiences with the concept of Easter Bunny. This might easily end up in fighting windmills.

(July 12, 2010 at 1:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: .. and I can still reject it based on lack of evidence.

Evidence for your own attribution to the concept? That makes no sense. You're rejecting a concept that hasn't been defined. That's saying that X does not exist without a definition of X.

(July 12, 2010 at 1:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: As I said above... if it's unverifiable so what? That doesn't mean it can't be defined as something unverifiable. Unverifiable doesn't mean undefinable.

I am not using the verifiablity argument in my reasoning. And I am not using undefinability in my reasoning. In fact I've pointed out already that definition in terms of the name of a person is possible. The thing that matters is the definition and its coherence to reality.

(July 12, 2010 at 1:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The fact its definition for the Easter Bunny is unverifiable and there therefore can't be any evidence to support it is why I reject and disbelieve it.

As pointed out, verifiable definitions can be given and unverifiable definitions can be given. You cannot reject existence of the Easter Bunny on basis of an unverifiable definition (that really is just the agnostic stance about the Easter Bunny), you can only reject the soundness of the proposition and hence the sanity of such an evaluation.

(July 12, 2010 at 1:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote: If you were told that there lives a guy called Easter Bunny you would have to re-evaluate your position.

That would be a different definition.

Only different from your guessed definition. This is exactly the trap that many religious believers knowingly or unknowingly stage for you: guess my god. It's a moving target like that of tackattack, ever changing colours, always morphing into something else.

(July 12, 2010 at 1:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote: You reject the soundness of the proposition, not the existence of any definition of Easter Bunny.

I reject the existence of the definition of the Easter bunny... the definition doesn't have to be perfectly clear... because no definition is - you can always add more detail.

If the Easter Bunny is defined you cannot reject the existence of the definition. If the Easter Bunny is not defined you cannot assess the claim. Guessing definitions only can lead to assessing your own attributions to the words.

(July 12, 2010 at 2:47 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Please observe that no meaning was stated with it.

However vague a definition the usual definition of the Easter bunny is - it's still a definion, it still means a bunny on easter that gives you chocolate eggs or whatever. However vague the meaning, it's still a meaning.

Quote: All meaning you ascribe to it is atributed to it by you.

It's from tradition actually.

Quote: In fact you're simply guessing what it could mean based on prior experiences with the concept of Easter Bunny.

So since you ackknowlege the traditional concept of the Easter bunny... why don't you therefore acknowledge what it traditionally means? It's definition=what it means=it's meaning.

Quote:Evidence for your own attribution to the concept? That makes no sense. You're rejecting a concept that hasn't been defined. That's saying that X does not exist without a definition of X.

However vague the concept... it's already been defined. The Easter bunny is a traditional thing as I said above... and, God is at least commony defined as "the creator of the universe", and a deity. "The creator of the universe" can be disbelieved due to you being unconvinced and finding it improbable, lacking in evidence, etc. God defined as meaning "the creator of the universe" therefore has meaning as just that "The creator of the universe." You can disbelieve or believe the existence of such a thing. I disbelieve it hence why I'm an atheist.

Quote:As pointed out, verifiable definitions can be given and unverifiable definitions can be given. You cannot reject existence of the Easter Bunny on basis of an unverifiable definition (that really is just the agnostic stance about the Easter Bunny)

God is often said to be "the creator of the universe" and a deity. This is the definition I use. This definition can be given and the existence of the actual thing defined in reality can be rejected due to lack of evidence. Such a thing is indeed unverifiable which is why I disbelieve it any why I'm an atheist. I try not to believe things without verification. I need to claim no knowledge of God whatsoever to be an atheist, unlike what Knight said. Just because I claim knowledge of the existence of the concept doesn't mean I claim knowledge of the actuality of God's existence. Certainly not - if I had any knowledge of God's existence I wouldn't be an atheist!

Quote:If the Easter Bunny is defined you cannot reject the existence of the definition.

Once defined the definition exists. And then when that definition is defined I obviously don't then reject the existence of the definition - because the definition obviously exists because it's just been defined! It is the thing itself that is defined (as opposed to its concept) that I reject the existence of because I know of no evidence of it.

If God is defined as "the creator of the universe". That is already self-evidence of its definition, because its definition has just been defined, that's self-evidence of it! But the acutal thing that the definition is defining (a and supposedly THE only creator of the universe(this universe)) I know of no evidence of at all and hence why I reject or IOW disbelieve the existence of it.

Quote:If the Easter Bunny is not defined you cannot assess the claim. Guessing definitions only can lead to assessing your own attributions to the words.

Definitions don't need to be guessed they just have to be, well, defined.

EvF

(July 12, 2010 at 4:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(July 12, 2010 at 2:47 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Please observe that no meaning was stated with it.

However vague a definition the usual definition of the Easter bunny is - it's still a definion, it still means a bunny on easter that gives you chocolate eggs or whatever. However vague the meaning, it's still a meaning.

"No meaning stated" means, well, no meaning stated. You yourself have attributed "the usual definition" to the easter bunny. It's fairly common to do so too. That's what we do when we handle language, we seek for patterns from the past. And that's OK when no serious evaluation of the proposition is asked for. But that all changes when a serious assessment of the proposition is asked for, for instance when the claim entails that all methodically shared facts of reality suddenly no longer hold. Than we need a definition from the proposer to assess the soundness of the proposition and the specifics of the claim. To deny existence of all Easter Bunnies, regardless of the claim is like strong atheism, a unreasoned belief in the non-existence of Easter Bunnies whatever their definition.

(July 12, 2010 at 4:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote: All meaning you ascribe to it is atributed to it by you.

It's from tradition actually.

Projected from tradition by you, isn't it?

(July 12, 2010 at 4:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote: In fact you're simply guessing what it could mean based on prior experiences with the concept of Easter Bunny.

So since you ackknowlege the traditional concept of the Easter bunny...

Don't put words in my mouth.

(July 12, 2010 at 4:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: why don't you therefore acknowledge what it traditionally means? It's definition=what it means=it's meaning.

Because the definition was not given. You lured yourself into thinking it was given.

(July 12, 2010 at 4:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Evidence for your own attribution to the concept? That makes no sense. You're rejecting a concept that hasn't been defined. That's saying that X does not exist without a definition of X.

However vague the concept... it's already been defined. The Easter bunny is a traditional thing as I said above... and, God is at least commony defined as "the creator of the universe", and a deity. "The creator of the universe" can be disbelieved due to you being unconvinced and finding it improbable, lacking in evidence, etc. God defined as meaning "the creator of the universe" therefore has meaning as just that "The creator of the universe." You can disbelieve or believe the existence of such a thing. I disbelieve it hence why I'm an atheist.

That's just too easy on the proposers of the proposition because you and the proposers don't address any specifics of the claim. The result will be, as is manifested all over this forum, that you are chasing ever changing meanings of the concept.

Can you give me your criterion on how vague a concept is allowed to be before you don't consider it as a sound proposition? Or is it the case that anything goes? For some god is love, is a definition too. Is that vague enough for you? Than surely you'll have to acknowledge that god exists. My stance is that a big claim such as that of the creator of the universe is in need for a rather well-frmed and sound proposition.

The meaning of "the creator of the universe" isn't straightforward at all. Nature might be the creator of the universe as we know it. In that case your atheism is bunk. When you say that it's plain that no natural creator is meant, the trojan horse supplied to you by believers with a vague definition is doing its work. Is their divine personal agency in the definition? Is omnipotence in the definition? Is care for humans in the definition? Your attribution to all this is a free ride for the believer and the believer at any time can stop you with: "Hey, that's not my god!". That would not be an assessment under the rules of predicate logic. When a strong claim is made, a strong definition must be given up front. Giving in to assessing vague claims is nice to kill time, it's no serious debate.

(July 12, 2010 at 4:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: God is often said to be "the creator of the universe" and a deity. This is the definition I use. This definition can be given and the existence of the actual thing defined in reality can be rejected due to lack of evidence. Such a thing is indeed unverifiable which is why I disbelieve it any why I'm an atheist. I try not to believe things without verification. I need to claim no knowledge of God whatsoever to be an atheist, unlike what Knight said. Just because I claim knowledge of the existence of the concept doesn't mean I claim knowledge of the actuality of God's existence. Certainly not - if I had any knowledge of God's existence I wouldn't be an atheist!

Assessing unseen and vague general claims is for fools. I am an atheist because no sound propsition on the meaning and definition of god has been presented to me. I make no assumptions about the meaning of the god concept. That is up to the believer. I agree that you don't need to make no assumptions about the god concept, but by guessing what is meant by god you in effect indeed do just that.

(July 12, 2010 at 4:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:If the Easter Bunny is defined you cannot reject the existence of the definition.

Once defined the definition exists. And then when that definition is defined I obviously don't then reject the existence of the definition - because the definition obviously exists because it's just been defined! It is the thing itself that is defined (as opposed to its concept) that I reject the existence of because I know of no evidence of it.

Exactly, but the definition was not given. You guessed it.

(July 12, 2010 at 4:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If God is defined as "the creator of the universe". That is already self-evidence of its definition, because its definition has just been defined, that's self-evidence of it! But the acutal thing that the definition is defining (a and supposedly THE only creator of the universe(this universe)) I know of no evidence of at all and hence reject or IOW disbelieve the existence of.

You are leaving out the soundness of the claim in terms of logical coherence, completeness and consistency as a criterion. I argue that a big claim demands logical robustness in this sense or you'd be chasing gods of rubber in no time.

(July 12, 2010 at 4:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:If the Easter Bunny is not defined you cannot assess the claim. Guessing definitions only can lead to assessing your own attributions to the words.

Definitions don't need to be guessed they just have to be, well, defined.

Go on then and chase those figments of your own imagination.

(July 12, 2010 at 5:16 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

Quote:But that all changes when a serious assessment of the proposition is asked for, for instance when the claim entails that all methodically shared facts of reality suddenly no longer hold.

Why does it? If I know of no evidence for a concept defined by whoever whenever and disbelieve it... what's the problem there?

Quote:Projected from tradition by you, isn't it?

Yes but it's still a definition. And the existence of the actual Easter bunny defined by tradition+me through my projection still lacks evidence. So I disbelieve it.

Quote:Don't put words in my mouth.

Sorry I thought you were implying your acknowledgement of the existence of the common traditional definition of the Easter Bunny.

Quote:Because the definition was not given. You lured yourself into thinking it was given.

I thought I've already defined the Easter bunny? The common traditional definition. An unspecific/undetailed definition is still a definition it's just a unspecific/undetailed one.

Quote:That's just too easy on the proposers of the proposition because you and the proposers don't address any specifics of the claim.

What relevance has easiness got to do with this argument? Aren't we going from facts to values there?

Quote:The result will be, as is manifested all over this forum, that you are chasing ever changing meanings of the concept.

Only when the concept's meaning is changed by being redefined.

Quote:Can you give me your criterion on how vague a concept is allowed to be before you don't consider it as a sound proposition?

Well it's sound if there's evidence supporting the truth of the claim, regardless of vagueness or specificness I would think? So long as the definition is understood... however general or specific it is.

Quote: Or is it the case that anything goes? For some god is love, is a definition too. Is that vague enough for you? Than surely you'll have to acknowledge that god exists.

If defined that way then yes.

Quote:The meaning of "the creator of the universe" isn't straightforward at all. Nature might be the creator of the universe as we know it. In that case your atheism is bunk.

Well then it wouldn't really be a supernatural creator and a deity. So that's a different definition.

Quote:When you say that it's plain that no natural creator is meant, the trojan horse supplied to you by believers with a vague definition is doing its work.

How so?

Quote: Is their divine personal agency in the definition?

Depends how they define it. Either way, whether it's a personal supernatural deity that created the universe (a theistic one) or an impersonal one (deistic) - it lacks evidence, hence my disbelief, hence my atheism.

Quote: Is omnipotence in the definition?

Often.

Quote: Is care for humans in the definition?

That's common.

Quote: Your attribution to all this is a free ride for the believer and the believer at any time can stop you with: "Hey, that's not my god!".

Aren't we going from facts to values again? Free ride for them or not what has that got to do with the fact I don't have to hold any knowledge of God's existence in order to disbelieve and be an atheist.

What is and what should be are two different arguments. Facts and values are separate - wouldn't you agree? Aren't you kind of mixing the two there?

Quote: That would not be an assessment under the rules of predicate logic. When a strong claim is made, a strong definition must be given up front. Giving in to assessing vague claims is nice to kill time, it's no serious debate.

Sounds like you're speaking values here too. Where is the relevance to this argument there?

Quote:Assessing unseen and vague general claims is for fools.

How is your judgement that it is for 'fools' relevant? Isn't that just values ... again?

Quote: I am an atheist because no sound propsition on the meaning and definition of god has been presented to me.

I thought you were a theological noncognitivist like Knight? How is it not unreasonable for you to disbelieve in God but it's unreasonable for me to disbelieve in God? If you claim that no meaningful definition of God can be given then how can you disbelieve it and be an atheist? If you agree that a definition that can be disbelieved in can be given then you rebut yourself do you not?

Quote: I make no assumptions about the meaning of the god concept. That is up to the believer.

That's a choice again, values we're talking here again... that's not a factual question.

Quote: I agree that you don't need to make no assumptions about the god concept, but by guessing what is meant by god you in effect indeed do just that.

Guessing definitions is just giving what I think a definition is... I can then disbelieve in the existence of the thing defined quite happily. What's the problem there? However God is defined it doesn't really matter, I don't have to assume any "knowledge" - I just have to define something and then ask myself if I think there's any evidence for it. I disbelieve certain types (it happens to be, concepts of a supernatural deity creating the universe, etc.) and due to lack of evidence I call myself an atheist as a label for that. That is all. What assumptions are required?

Quote:Exactly, but the definition was not given. You guessed it.

So how wasn't it defined - whether it's guessed or unguessed it's still a definition that I can ask myself if there's evidence to support it or not.

Quote:You are leaving out the soundness of the claim in terms of logical coherence, completeness and consistency as a criterion. I argue that a big claim demands logical robustness in this sense or you'd be chasing gods of rubber in no time.

Claims can be ordinary or extraordinary.... and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraoridnary the evidence required (if we are to be rational)... as you know I'm sure. However vague the proposition is, once a definition for something is given and you ask yourself if there is evidence of it.... the more extraordinary the claim the more evidence you expect and the less probable it is to be true... unless enough evidence can be provided.

[quote='EvidenceVsFaith' pid='80040' dateline='1278964974']

Quote:If the Easter Bunny is not defined you
Definitions don't need to be guessed they just have to be, well, defined.

[quote=PR]Go on then and chase those figments of your own imagination.

I think what I said stands and you didn't refute it. Not that I'd expect you too since it's kind of tautological!: Definitions just have to be defined, that's obvious. Who does the defining and what definitions are "reasonable" is a value judgement, not a factual one, and a matter of personal preference. Subjective, not objective.

EvF

Quote:I thought you were a theological noncognitivist like Knight? How is it not unreasonable for you to disbelieve in God but it's unreasonable for me to disbelieve in God? If you claim that no meaningful definition of God can be given then how can you disbelieve it and be an atheist? If you agree that a definition that can be disbelieved in can be given then you rebut yourself do you not?

It is fairly simple. The theological noncognitivist recognizes where the burden of proof lies. Thing first, then observe the attributes of that thing. You cannot logically deduce attributes from nothing and then say they apply to something. This is step one.

Now, just for the sake of argument, if you were to press me with specifics, such as "Do you believe in a Supreme being in which created the universe and (insert infinite possibilities which people apply)?" My response would be "No" which would make me an atheist towards what someone is defining. As a theological noncognitivist, though, there is a more serious problem than whether or not we believe in what was defined. What was defined, was defined improperly as it is based upon quite literally nothing. I incorrectly called this "meaningless" earlier, and you were right to call me out on this. I recant the word meaningless, and I'd like to replace it with "futile." It is futile to state one's position on the existence of a being which you cannot deduce attributes without assuming you already know them.