Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View

[fr0d0]

OK you're throwing in the towel Knight. It does seem you have no argument, and you admit to saying the same thing over and over.

I most certainly am not throwing in the towel, but nice try! I only have to repeat myself because YOU repeat yourself.

Sorry I thought you said you weren't going to discuss this any further:

I'm tired of going in circles so it is time to put on a halt.

Nothing exists that isn't observable? Are you gnostic about this? You are categorically saying that God cannot exist?

That's not what I said Frodo, nor is it anywhere close to what I meant. You cannot say if it does or does not exist if you cannot observe it! It is equivalent to the unicorn example I provided. Sure, it is possible that the unicorn exists, but the way I currently have it defined, it would be futile to discuss whether it exists or not. Same with your God. It is futile to give it any attributes without observing it.

I'm sorry you feel the need to get defensive - I simply wanted to clear up that point. Thankyou for doing so.

See the vast majority of us here don't agree with that. We all think you can't know. And if you can't know either, how can you be so bold as to make this claim? I would suggest that logically, you cannot. Your position is untenable.

You are a slimy theist, aren't you? Throwing in straw mans seems to be second nature to you. Thankfully I said nothing of the sort. I've been saying all along you cannot know. You're the one who believes because you claim to know something about God. You have claimed several times:

Insulting is a fallacy did you know?

What we're missing here of course is any first attempt to describe God. So we're talking pure theory. No one can ever know one way or the other.. that's sorta a core point... as I've already said. I've also intimated directly above that I cannot know. I asked you if you were different to the rest of us and actually 'knew'. It turns out that you say you don't. Good.

This is how God is defined and it clearly is effective in formulating an idea of what God is.

Referring to telling us what God is not. For not being able to know, you sure make a lot of claims that suggest you know.

I think you confuse 'knowing everything' with knowing something. Depending on our starting position, we can formulate attributes that logically fit our construct. The entity of God as defined over the entirety of human history has concluded thus far the omnimax attributes. This conclusion is logically coherent. You don't have to go with that. You can devise any or no construct of your own and I have no problem with you doing that. What I do object to is you making categorical claims that simply don't hold water. You cannot know, and neither can I.

The "observable" here doesn't include the physically observable but intellectual observance of logical thought. You require God to be a physical entity when God isn't a physical entity. Yes you're going to fail with that.

You have now finally declared that God is not physical. It took you long enough. Now you're at least moving in some direction!

Not so. In post #42 I refered to God as having a transcendental nature.

God is not entirely physical. He is in his creation which is necessarily part of him.

Tell me, how does a nonphysical being interact with the universe? Then, how do you know? How do you know there is such a nonphysical being to begin with? You are just guessing, but you refuse to admit it.

How do you not know? Answer: you don't.