I agree with most of it Purple, but can't use as many big words to do so. 
You're right about all points but one I guess, in my books. But that is just my little opinion and i appreciate yours. I think whether or not the word 'god' references a real thing is more subjective.
When I say 'God exists', I am using two small but powerful symbols in conjunction to try to express an idea or thought that I have in my head. That disassociation is part of the human condition, that in a sense we don't think in English (but in another Orwellian sense we do...). The idea I personally am trying to posit when I would say 'god exists' might not be the same as another theist, and there are way of meaning the term that are flawed, fallacious or untrue.
It's all about how you define the loose term of god. You, I think, would define God as something that does not exist. Or may not exist, I don't intend to speak for you... I define God as something, alternatively, that does or may exist. All the proof and evidence is wholly circumstantial and relative, God only exist in a debatable theory nowadays. So it's not that I feel I am denying scientific fact by believing in God, but that (as per my personal definition, and I can't speak for everyone) God and science are only opposed if you choose to believe in a God opposed to science.
Just for clarity, I can't leave out the personal definition of god I keep referencing. I think god is half intelligent design and half logical probability. The system as I see and exist in it appears far too complex to be accidental, coincidental or a matter of chance. And I don't mean to argue evolution, that would be flawed god. This goes all the way up, that a god would have created the systems in place that make evolution and life and existence possible. Evolution itself is not a driven process with any intent of even distinction of it's own. It is a side-effect, if you will, from the two basic rules of time and change. The fourth dimension, which is itself closely related to the possibility and reality of change. That's the big picture ID argument, augmented by classic examples of those silly flagellum motors. Then plausibility because of the chain of causality that is also part of the time/change system. We can have two answers to the causality debate, I think. Either there is not cause without and effect, and no effect without a cause, or there was one once. Either we are in a very lucky, very beatific and marvelously complex and essentially infinite series of causes, or it is more likely that there was something that made this. The unmoved mover. And then worship of god becomes more pragmatic, because you try to appreciate the complexity and interdependency of life and try to learn not to fuck with it to much. Come to terms with what you cannot control, so as to better understand what you can. And have a personified concept to say thanks to, which is always good for you. Humility is empowering.
That was a bit of a rant, thanks for listening.
-Pip
You're right about all points but one I guess, in my books. But that is just my little opinion and i appreciate yours. I think whether or not the word 'god' references a real thing is more subjective.
Quote:One can argue (as theological noncognitivists do) that the sentence "god exists" does not express a proposition since the word god has no meaningful attributes and hence that nothing named 'god' exists.I would then argue the other side, that the term 'god' is (unfortunately) definable by the individual using (and hearing) it. God is just another word, and words are something I am intimate with. It is an abstract expression of a concept, so I had to disagree when you said it wasn't a definable concept. If it is anything, at the least it is a concept.
When I say 'God exists', I am using two small but powerful symbols in conjunction to try to express an idea or thought that I have in my head. That disassociation is part of the human condition, that in a sense we don't think in English (but in another Orwellian sense we do...). The idea I personally am trying to posit when I would say 'god exists' might not be the same as another theist, and there are way of meaning the term that are flawed, fallacious or untrue.
It's all about how you define the loose term of god. You, I think, would define God as something that does not exist. Or may not exist, I don't intend to speak for you... I define God as something, alternatively, that does or may exist. All the proof and evidence is wholly circumstantial and relative, God only exist in a debatable theory nowadays. So it's not that I feel I am denying scientific fact by believing in God, but that (as per my personal definition, and I can't speak for everyone) God and science are only opposed if you choose to believe in a God opposed to science.
Just for clarity, I can't leave out the personal definition of god I keep referencing. I think god is half intelligent design and half logical probability. The system as I see and exist in it appears far too complex to be accidental, coincidental or a matter of chance. And I don't mean to argue evolution, that would be flawed god. This goes all the way up, that a god would have created the systems in place that make evolution and life and existence possible. Evolution itself is not a driven process with any intent of even distinction of it's own. It is a side-effect, if you will, from the two basic rules of time and change. The fourth dimension, which is itself closely related to the possibility and reality of change. That's the big picture ID argument, augmented by classic examples of those silly flagellum motors. Then plausibility because of the chain of causality that is also part of the time/change system. We can have two answers to the causality debate, I think. Either there is not cause without and effect, and no effect without a cause, or there was one once. Either we are in a very lucky, very beatific and marvelously complex and essentially infinite series of causes, or it is more likely that there was something that made this. The unmoved mover. And then worship of god becomes more pragmatic, because you try to appreciate the complexity and interdependency of life and try to learn not to fuck with it to much. Come to terms with what you cannot control, so as to better understand what you can. And have a personified concept to say thanks to, which is always good for you. Humility is empowering.
That was a bit of a rant, thanks for listening.
-Pip
