The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept

[Captain Scarlet]

Well a god is a living being that has the greatness that makes it worthy of worship.

The fallacies incumbent in the response render it impotent against the argument I presented. Unless you are going to invoke the ontological argument for god, it is a bare assertion that god is a living being of greatness, you know no such thing, you may believe it but that leaves gods metaphysical status in a wholly different situation. The term greatness is subjective (sp. relative) and has no objective meaning. Tiger Woods is great at golf, is he worthy of worship? I think we both would agree not. But why is gods supposed greatness worthy of worship? (you are then left appealing to secondary or relational attributes and therefore begging the question). Concluding that his greatness makes him worthy of worship is a non-sequitur (and would also abolish human moral autonomy but that is another matter). Finally and worse of all this does nothing to answer the problem of gods primary attribute. If god is a being worthy of worship that is at best a relational attribute to you (and other xtians I assume). It says nothing of the nature of such a being only how you wish to behave towards him.

What a god is not universal, Greeks had their more human like gods. When it comes to the "capital G', God, God is a Spirit, he is immaterial, and he is Ultimate in his attributes

Is a bare assertion and we have no grounds for assuming it is correct with respect to reality, other than your say-so (or any other theist who cares to say the same). But if god is immaterial then that may be an attempt to negatively define part of his nature but it does not qualify as a positive identification of his primary attribute. Let me help you (again I have already gone through this in earlier posts): If I was describing a car, I could say it isn’t a motorbike (ie negatively define it), but that fails to answer the problem of what it is, because the answer could equally be a bird as that is also not a motorbike.

like being wise, merciful, compassionate, and good.

All these may be fine qualities, but just what are they qualities of? What is the nature of the being possessing them? These are expressions of a personality not the nature of a being. You are stating secondary and relational attributes and saying they are primary attributes. However relevant you think it is, it is still a mistake to do that against the argument from meaninglessness (non-cognitivism).

It's very clear, and his nature has descriptions.
Sure we don't grasp everything about his nature, we can't see it, but still we know some meaningful things about his nature and we have meaningful concept

Well your contradicting your own proposition. It cannot be both be very clear and us also not be able to grasp what god is (I would argue you haven’t demonstrated anything as above). It is far very from very clear, as your responses demonstrate and the inherent misunderstandings that underpin it, even Aquinas couldn’t.

I think I already have.

You think wrongly.

[snip] his nature is meaningful to us [snip]

I’ve already supplied commentary for the snipped out bits. However isn’t that exactly the problem, if god was meaningful it would be objectively meaningful and not just ‘obvious’ to ‘us’. In other words you can’t provide a reason why you (us if broadened out to other xtians) have not just convinced yourselves of the truth of what you say. Worse still you cannot provide any reasoning why it isn’t a concept that you project from your own natures onto a placeholder (ie ‘god’). You want something to worship and he becomes that object of worship, you want something to love you and he becomes all loving.

Honestly I don't see how you have an argument at all [snip] Everything said about God is meaningful, so I don't see how it can at all be a meaningless concept.

Probably because you do not understand the argument. Your rejoinder isn’t pure incredulity in that you are saying “I just don’t understand therefore you are wrong”. You haven’t engaged the argument properly and as such it your counter points can be dismissed.

Those points again, made easy for you:
5 equivellent (A=B) statements about Gods nature:
God is one. (Deut. 6:4, Romans 3:30, Galatians 3:20, James 2:19)
God is holy. (Psalm 99:9)
God is spirit. (John 4:24)
God is light. (1 John 1:5)
God is love. (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16)

Well lets grapple with these individually. You seem to indicate you’ve been saying this all along, but I only remember you trying to equate gods primary attribute as a deity (when referring to the trinity, or apparently as the deity now god appears to be ‘one’), which thankfully you see to have moved away from.

God is One

What does this mean and how is it known. I have read the detail which helps define this further as “God is God, and He is this God”. OK but how do we take from this that the emergent property of god being one necessarily equates to him being omnipotent or a creator or brown or anything. Its not only meaningless but a non-sequitur, if you are going to invoke this as a primary attribute. Because whilst you are expressing an idea that idea is unthinkable. Allow me to detail via an example.

For any sentence S, S is meaningless if and only if S expresses an unthinkable proposition or S does not express a proposition. Claiming that X is a square, it is one, and it exists outside of space and time, cannot be seen or measured and it actively hates purple cylinders. Granted there could be a mystical interpretation, both with God and X, but that hardly helps us when it come to objective understanding of meaning. I really don’t mean to sound dismissive and apologise if I do. So whilst X expresses an idea, that idea is unthinkable and thus meaningless.

God is Holy

Same problem, same reasons.

God is Spirit

More interesting, and a problem for different reasons. This superficially expresses a positive attribute. But again a spirit is only defined in negative terms, ie what it isn’t, immaterial, incorporeal, non-life etc. Hence we are left with the same problem.

God is Light

The green bishpot is light, and is also therefore the creator. It is an unthinkable proposition and a non-sequitur.

God is Love

Aquinas applied such terms as “knowledge”,” “life,” “will,” “love,” “justice and mercy,” and “power” to the concept of God, and these qualities are clearly positive in nature. But we still have serious problems. These positive qualities refer to God’s personality rather than his metaphysical nature as an existent being. Love is a fine thing, but what is the nature of the being possessing it? If theists are to rescue God from the oblivion of the unknowable, must accomplish more than list secondary attributes and meaningless concepts/sentences, which appear only to make sense to those who already believe and who wish to apply mystical interpretation to them. If it cannot xtianity is, at best, useless.

[fr0d0]

Well lets grapple with these individually. You seem to indicate you’ve been saying this all along, but I only remember you trying to equate gods primary attribute as a deity (when referring to the trinity, or apparently as the deity now god appears to be ‘one’), which thankfully you see to have moved away from.

No, I quoted them already, you seem to have missed it.
I've moved away for God is to Deity as Human is to Homosapien because you dismiss it for some reason that I hadn't grasped.

God is One

What does this mean and how is it known. I have read the detail which helps define this further as “God is God, and He is this God”. OK but how do we take from this that the emergent property of god being one necessarily equates to him being omnipotent or a creator or brown or anything. Its not only meaningless but a non-sequitur, if you are going to invoke this as a primary attribute. Because whilst you are expressing an idea that idea is unthinkable. Allow me to detail via an example.

For any sentence S, S is meaningless if and only if S expresses an unthinkable proposition or S does not express a proposition. Claiming that X is a square, it is one, and it exists outside of space and time, cannot be seen or measured and it actively hates purple cylinders. Granted there could be a mystical interpretation, both with God and X, but that hardly helps us when it come to objective understanding of meaning. I really don’t mean to sound dismissive and apologise if I do. So whilst X expresses an idea, that idea is unthinkable and thus meaningless.

God is methematically 1.

This is why I brought up materialism. If you insist that we cannot draw intellectual conclusions then this, to me, is you insisting that we are confined by the material. You assure me that you place no such restrictions upon the discussion, so let me adress the wider problem...

If X is a square, we could then test that X is not a circle. If we find that X has less than 4 sides then we have defeated the hypothesis. Likewise if we discover that X has 4 straight sides with corners of 90', we have confirmed the hypothessis. So too the whole of Christian thinking seeks to explore and verify God's nature as declared. God's nature is not something we can foreknow, it is something which precedes us, and is evident. From that presumption (that God 'is') we can test if the hypothesis works; and it does.

God is Love

Aquinas applied such terms as “knowledge”,” “life,” “will,” “love,” “justice and mercy,” and “power” to the concept of God, and these qualities are clearly positive in nature. But we still have serious problems. These positive qualities refer to God’s personality rather than his metaphysical nature as an existent being. Love is a fine thing, but what is the nature of the being possessing it? If theists are to rescue God from the oblivion of the unknowable, must accomplish more than list secondary attributes and meaningless concepts/sentences, which appear only to make sense to those who already believe and who wish to apply mystical interpretation to them. If it cannot xtianity is, at best, useless.

Important to a Christian is the person of God and not proof of existance, which by coherent difinition and logical necessity cannot be known.


PS: If you don't create perfect quote tags your post will appear to be blank. You can edit the post to correct your errors

[Norfolk And Chance]

It is logical to assume that god does not exist if you can't prove his existence.

The trouble with your reasoning that you cannot logically prove god's existence for all the reasons that you state, is that the reasons themselves are made up.

[fr0d0]

It is fallacious to assume that god does not exist if you can't prove his existence.

Fixed that for you

[Norfolk And Chance]

It is fallacious to assume that god does not exist if you can't prove his existence.

Fixed that for you

Incorrect.

It is perfectly logical to assume that god does not exist based on zero evidence. Assumption is not the same as knowing.

[fr0d0]

So please tell me how you can have empirical evidence of a non empirical subject.

The demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.

We cannot know, using empirical evidence, that there is a God.

[Norfolk And Chance]

So please tell me how you can have empirical evidence of a non empirical subject.

The demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.

We cannot know, using empirical evidence, that there is a God.

The problem is, you're attributing god as non empirical. Based on what? There is no reason not to believe that if there is a god that he could be empiricaly measured. How do we know that the god subject is a non empirical subject? Because you and others say so? Not good enough.

It always comes back to nothing more than "belief". You either do or you don't. Belief is no good for establishing truth.

We cannot know using empirical evidence that there is a god because there isn't one. That would be the simplest explanation - Occam's Razor.

Surely an all knowing, all great god would know this and ensure that he could be empirically measured, just to shut non believers up.

If he's as important as people reckon, then we need to know not believe in god. Unless he's playing games to see who believes based on no evidence and who doesn't, which makes him strange to say the least.

[fr0d0]

I'm classifying God as non empirically provable because that is the definition of that God (the Xtian God). If you wish to address a god that is empirically evidenced, then that's another subject (ie not the Xtian God).

How do I know this God is not empirically evidenced > from the definition Xtianity proposes for this God.

I believe in God, correct. I do not know empirically that he exists, because that would be logically impossible. I believe through faith, and not blind faith.

---

Faith:

Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

---

You state that there isn't a god. A bold claim. On what evidence? A: Because you say so. I'm sorry: not good enough. This life is what you've got and you ought to face up to it rather than theorise about what might have been. We have a choice and that's how it works in this reality.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I'm classifying God as non empirically provable because that is the definition of that God (the Xtian God). If you wish to address a god that is empirically evidenced, then that's another subject (ie not the Xtian God).

Who says that the xtian defintion of god is true? xtians say it - other than that we have nothing. It is utterly convenient to state that he is invisible, unmeasurable if you're trying to convince a gullible person that he exists when you have zero evidence.

How do I know this God is not empirically evidenced > from the definition Xtianity proposes for this God.

You just said that and I just answered.

I believe in God, correct. I do not know empirically that he exists, because that would be logically impossible. I believe through faith, and not blind faith.

It is only logically impossible for you to know he exists empirically, if we know that the christian non-empirical definition of him is true. We don't know this, and to a rational person there is no sound basis to believe it. We can always just knock all of this out of the equation and get back to the basics - prove he exists! You can't? I can guess why!

---

Faith:

Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

---

You state that there isn't a god. A bold claim. On what evidence? A: Because you say so.

No, not because I say so but because there is no evidence to support the existence of god and no reason to believe in a creator either. Normally the simplest explanation is the best one - no evidence = no god - I can state that reasonably boldly in a debate with a theist without worrying about being shown up. The burden of proof is always going to be on the believer, and billions of you have no proof, again it tells it's own story.

I'm sorry: not good enough. This life is what you've got and you ought to face up to it rather than theorise about what might have been.

I can't believe a theist has just said that to me. With a straight face.

Back at you, my fantasy believing new chum!

We have a choice and that's how it works in this reality.

Yes WE (Atheists) have a choice, theists seem not to. You're told to believe from an early age, this is not a choice. The choice given by god (believe in me as your saviour OR go to hell and suffer) is not a choice, it is an instruction to do something or pay the price.

I'll pay the price every day of the week rather than worship that mentalist.

[frankiej]

I don't see compelling enough reason to believe in God in the same way that there isn't reason to believe in every child's imaginary friend.

But, that all he is, isn't he? An imaginary friend. You give characteristics that suit you. Is it perhaps sub-conscious? The real reasons you believe? I don't know. But, maybe, just maybe, it is because deep down it terrifies people to accept reality and all the "hopelessness" that it comes with.