The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept

[The Grand Nudger]

Whatever point they met at would be quantifiable. In before "god of the gaps".

[Captain Scarlet]

Still nothing to dismantle the argument from meaninglessness. Infact just the opposite, in that the more threads are posted, the more meaningless it becomes. No primary attribute/s of god.

As for entities which are not available to empiricism, lets suspend disbelief and grant that this is possible. There is a problem here though, if the said entities impact on the natural world (as god is said to do), there effects must produce observable phenomona and natural explanations would be inadequate. However this is not what we find (infact quite the reverse), even given that from the protestations of theists that 'miracles occur on a daily basis'. Whenever this is tested the results appear to be consistent with chance (or even worse in some double blind trials of prayer efficacy). This is exactly what we would expect if the atheism were true. So if there is a claim that a being exists that we cannot directly test, whose impact on the natural world is not measurable, for which there is no knockdown reasoning and for which the concept as defined is meaningless. It is reasonable to conclude that we are not justified in beleiving in such things. Also note here the consistency of the athiest position wrt to 1) arguments from divine hiddenness/reasoned non-belief, 2) the success of natural science, 3) the necessaity of naturalism and 4) the subject of this thread re the meaninglessness of the term god.

[fr0d0]

It is also exactly what we would expect if theism is true Scarlet. We can't tell if atheism is true because it has no structure.

[The Grand Nudger]

What do you think your objection means? What structure would you be referring to? It's difficult to define even the ancillaries to god isn't it. Wonder why that is?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Still nothing to dismantle the argument from meaninglessness. Infact just the opposite, in that the more threads are posted, the more meaningless it becomes. No primary attribute/s of god.

As for entities which are not available to empiricism, lets suspend disbelief and grant that this is possible. There is a problem here though, if the said entities impact on the natural world (as god is said to do), there effects must produce observable phenomona and natural explanations would be inadequate. However this is not what we find (infact quite the reverse), even given that from the protestations of theists that 'miracles occur on a daily basis'. Whenever this is tested the results appear to be consistent with chance (or even worse in some double blind trials of prayer efficacy). This is exactly what we would expect if the atheism were true. So if there is a claim that a being exists that we cannot directly test, whose impact on the natural world is not measurable, for which there is no knockdown reasoning and for which the concept as defined is meaningless. It is reasonable to conclude that we are not justified in beleiving in such things. Also note here the consistency of the athiest position wrt to 1) arguments from divine hiddenness/reasoned non-belief, 2) the success of natural science, 3) the necessaity of naturalism and 4) the subject of this thread re the meaninglessness of the term god.

That's what I was trying to say

[Captain Scarlet]

It is also exactly what we would expect if theism is true Scarlet. We can't tell if atheism is true because it has no structure.

Righto

[Blam!]

It'd be easy to conclude god may not involved.

I think I know what you are saying, but could you clarify please.

Ah ok.
What is book? They're consist of papers, words and language - in which are a product of human culture. Dead Sea Scrolls are also one of human makings. The point is our creativity doesn't require god and we created the bible - despite the claims of bible as a God's word.

But, I'm not sure if there's scientific research on the origin of creativity, language.

You must use the method appropriate to the subject. If the unicorn is meant to be a physically evidenced creature then it would be appropriate to expect physical evidence.

What is appropriate word to explain the existence of god? Faith, right?

The evidence we have of God is what we can logically deduce. We can test that for logical soundness.

What is the evidence do you have can be logically deduced?

If you requested the same of a methematical equasion, for example, then requiring physical evidence of that equasion would be absurd.

But mathematical equations are one of theories to describe of our understanding of the universe. The mathematical formula like kinetic energy - explaining how much energy in traveling projectile or amount of energy produced by asteroid crashing into ground.

I understand what are you trying to say that science and faith is mutually excessive.

Well at some point they have to meet. But yes, you get the picture.

Yeah. And I don't think if the existence of god with basis of faith can be logically deduced.

[Mister Agenda]

Would I be correct in concluding that an implication of Fr0d0's including 'not susceptible to empirical detection' as an essential element in the definition of the Christian God is that for any God for which there is empirical evidence, it is not evidence of the Christian God, by definition? For example, we could be assured that a miracle that withstands scientific scrutiny is not the work of the Christian God.

[The Grand Nudger]

That would be one of the many hilarious implications of the statement yes. Of course, if we found ourselves in such a situation I'm fairly certain that his tune would change to "well, god is mysterious, he can do anything after all, the evidence is right in front of you!" The liquidity and fluidity of a concept with no meaningful definition is impressive.

[fr0d0]

we could be assured that a miracle that withstands scientific scrutiny is not the work of the Christian God.

Absolutely correct. Kudos. Not for something from God to exist, but for something from God to exist [i]with a provable link to God, that[i/] would be illogical.

We can logically infer God, but removing the choice to believe in him would contradict the whole of the Xtian tradition.

---

What is book? They're consist of papers, words and language - in which are a product of human culture. Dead Sea Scrolls are also one of human makings. The point is our creativity doesn't require god and we created the bible - despite the claims of bible as a God's word.

They're ony words written on pieces of paper, collated and chosen amongst other words on other bits of paper. The question is do they collectively present a coherent proof of God. I would say that they do. They aren't magic, they're just a perfect answer to a problem. Not impossible to improve, no one could ever say that, but as good as we've got and completely viable.

What is the evidence do you have can be logically deduced?

The evidence which is presented in the bible and directly experienced.

I don't think if the existence of god with basis of faith can be logically deduced.

I do.

Faith explained:

Faith is 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.