The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept

[Captain Scarlet]

The phrase: “A God exists” insofar as it attempts to construct itself as a proposition is false because the term “God” does not refer to anything in particular, and therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that a god exists in reality is untrue.

1. There are three attributes of existents, these being:
- A) Primary Attributes, the nature of a thing
- B) Secondary Attributes, that things characteristics
- C) Relational Attributes, how the thing stands in relationship to the rest of reality
2) B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3) The concept of 'God' lacks a positively identified A.
4) Because of this, the concept of 'God' holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
5) However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
6) Therefore, the concept of 'God' is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

For example in the natural world we can state that humans have:

1) the primary attribute of being homo sapiens (their nature being instantiated from the human genome expressed through each unique individual in that group by their specific DNA)
2) it necessarily follows from this that humans have a number of secondary attributes, including biological traits, conscience, the ability to become self aware, but have limited knowledge so and so forth
3) humans stand in relational attributes to the reality in that they are builders of societies and civilizations, create important works through the arts, uncover truths about reality through science but are not the most benevolent beings imaginable

A god may carry secondary or relational attributes but has no positively identified primary attribute. It is described as unknowable (though how that is known is not made clear) and sovereign. God is thus utterly meaningless to rational discourse.

[fr0d0]

If we didn't describe God then we wouldn't be able to call him 'God'. Clearly God is defined. He has a nature that is also well defined.
Primary attribute = deity
Only non theists are concerned with a pre cognitive 'thing'.
God is only meaningful in rational discourse.

[Captain Scarlet]

If we didn't describe God then we wouldn't be able to call him 'God'. Clearly God is defined. He has a nature that is also well defined.
Primary attribute = deity
Only non theists are concerned with a pre cognitive 'thing'.
God is only meaningful in rational discourse.

Assigning god to a class of beings called deities doesn't help your position. You are replacing one meaningless concept with another and you end up question begging. To prove your deity has the secondary attributes you want to project on to him you are assuming he has the primary attribute of (guess what) 'a deity', which (guess what) has the attributes you wish to project in the first place.

Humans can be assigned to homo sapiens species as there is strong evidence of the existence of our species as well as the mechanisms by which we become part of reality. There is no such parallel with deities. Your rejoinder therefore fails to address this problem.

[fr0d0]

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.

[SleepingDemon]

So how many of these so-called deities are there? How do you separate deities from nondeities?

[Cyberman]

The assertion that God=deity by itself is meaningless, unless you give some definition to the word deity we're right back where we started and you've imparted no information. All you've done is evaded the initial question. In fact it reminds me of this dialogue exchange from a classic BBC serial - can anyone identify it?

DOCTOR: "If the Thraskin puts his fingers in his ears, it is polite to shout!" That's an old venusian proverb.

JO: Well, what's a Thraskin?

DOCTOR: Thraskin? Oh, it's an archaic word, seldom used since the twenty-fifth dynasty, the modern equivalent is "plinge".

JO: What does plinge mean?

DOCTOR: Oh, for heaven's sake, Jo. I've just told you - it means Thraskin.

[fr0d0]

So only words that refer to actual phisical objects are real words. The rest don't count. I see

[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).

[Joe Bloe]

The phrase: “A God exists” insofar as it attempts to construct itself as a proposition is false because the term “God” does not refer to anything in particular...

I always get a laugh when a theist attempts to describe god and casually includes "ineffable" as one of the descriptors.

They earnestly explain that god is beyond the understanding of mere mortals - and then go ahead to list everything they understand about god !

[fr0d0]

Again you are failing by trying to dismiss something on grounds of attributes it cannot by definition posess Cpn.

Of course God refers to something in particular, or we couldn't call God God. Any Christian will have a very firm understanding of who God is and can corroborate that with every other Christian, and even the discerning non Christian who cares to confront the theology thoroughly.

So as usual I find your root objection to lack substance.