The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept

[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