Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View

[Knight]

I have shown precisely, and all you have done is to try to introduce objectivity of a non object.

Please tell me more about this "non object." If it is not objective, how can we possibly know anything about it, even the state of its existence?

The 'blue' answer was not mine, but your fellow atheist. I don't 'insist' that I am right. I presume to be right in the absence of reasonable opposition.

If that is the case, then I apologize. I will have to reread this thread then.

Well what is your special pleading' point if not a plea to uniqueness?? So you accept that uniqueness is no reason to except the possibility... so you can consider a being without needing to be observable then?

You really don't get it? Come on, I think you're more intelligent than you're letting on.

It's not the fact that it's unique that I have a problem with. It is the fact that this unique property is not observable. If the unique property happens to be that it is unobservable, then yes, I have a problem with it. All known things in the universe are in some way observable. If it is not observable, it cannot be said to exist (no one can prove it doesn't, but why the presumption that it does?)

Take this as an analogy.

There is a unicorn living on the moon. This unicorn is capable of anaerobic respiration, which is why it does not die. It is also immaterial, which explains why we cannot see it or detect it in any way.

The words in the above context make sense, but in reality no such being can be shown to exist. Does that mean we just assume it does? Why? Even if such a being does exist, if it is immaterial how does it have any meaning? It certainly would not be able to interact with the universe in any way, being completely immaterial. It would seem that even if God exists, believing in him is completely meaningless. If this is the God you believe in, fine. No one will ever be able to prove you wrong.