(March 23, 2015 at 6:19 am)Delicate Wrote: When someone says a being exists (call it x) which has the set of properties P, they are not making a claim about the meaning of words.
Aren't they? They, we, are talking about the meaning or definition of what it means to be 'entity X'. You're saying that X has property P as opposed to X with property Q or property R or property S. When discussing what properties are attributable and not attributable to X you are talking about what and how you define X, exactly as FNM points out!
I can define myself as entity "AF User" with property "Muppet" but that doesn't mean it's an accurate or true definition of me and I can demonstrate this fact. When it comes to gods, saying they are caused or uncaused is meaningless in the face of the fact that no gods anywhere can be demonstrated to exist at all, let alone a god with the property of "caused" or "uncaused." So what you are doing is asserting a definition, without justification or demonstration, that most suits your position.
Quote:They are making a claim about reality, namely "Reality, ie 'the total set of everything that exist,' includes as a member 'entity x with properties P.'"
It also includes all "entity X"s with properties other than P and you have to have justification for choosing X w/P and not X w/Q, X w/R or X w/S or even just "X without property P". You have not and are not doing so, you are simply asserting that it's X w/P and that's that!
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
