The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept

[Captain Scarlet]

You're illiterate Cpn.

Me or my argument Frods?

Yes you said 3 times that I was "begging the question" but not once have you shown how.

And in the first post (#3) i said why and repeated this in my last response in an informal manner. I'll express it more formally if its helps:

1. Fr0d0 identifies Gods primary attribute as diety
2. Given xtian theism is a montheism the proposition that god = diety is identical to god = god, as xtianity also identifies god as "The Diety" ie the only diety.
3. Therefore Fr0d0 identifies god primary attribute as god.
4. Given my argument identifies god as a menaingless term without a positively identified primary attribute
5. We are left to conclude that Fr0d0 begs the question by assuming gods prmary attribute is god., ie he is assuming what he attempting to demonstrate
PS. Even identifying the xtian god as "A diety" also lacks meaning, becuase diety lacks positively identified primary attribute

Your only argument from above:
God in not to Deity as Man is to homosapien

Sigh

WTF??

Yes indeed

Of course he fucking is, UNLESS you dismiss the classifications, as you conveniently do, on the grounds of materialism.

I do not have to dismiss any of your classifications. They are dead on arrival and you have dismissed them yourself by begging the question. Again I have not mentioned materialism in my argument nor have I sought to utilise it to defend my propositions. Of course I can invoke it to provide evidnece of my position. You seem to be angling on my views on materialism. As a strong atheist I am happy with the claims of naturalism. But that does not necessarily entail that I must affirm materialism at least in its narrowest of interpretations. I am attracted to materialism but only insofar as it broadest defintions would include all known natural phenomona and those we are yet to uncover, mainly through naturalisms own methodology. None of this is relevant to the argument re the meaninglessness of god, and is a straw man of your own making. Please continue to knock it down if you wish, but it fails to address the problem as stated.

To restate again the problem you face is that god is not identifed in any positive sense on his primary attribute. We are led to believe that he is not material, not corporeal, not visible etc etc. But we can name evetything else in reality with positive primary attributes. Humans for example are homo sapiens with a discoered human genome which expresses a form, unique to the individual mechanistcially programmed in through their DNA. All variety of secondary attributes necessarily follow from this including finitude, bilateral symmetry, skin colour, the higher brain (with very few exceptions becuase of some known genetic reasons) etc. Homo sapiens are also builders of cities, civilisations, great works of art, terrible acts of violence. All these are relational attributes to reality and each other. We therefore have excellent reasons to conclude that the term human is not meaningless.

How do we conclude similarly for a god? We are told they are all powerful (secondary attribute), and the creator of the universe (relational attribute). But the term god is meaningless and therefore there is nothing to pin those other attributes on and it still mean anything at all. If I were to say god is red (secondary attribute) and he is a great artist (relational attribute) that make as much sense.