Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View

[fr0d0]

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

Nope. I said:

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

Simply halt the circular discussion to move forward.

Yes, I meant with me.

From this point forward all meaningless comments such as the above in this post shall cease. I will ignore them if you continue to post them.

Good. That's fine by me.

I think you confuse 'knowing everything' with knowing something.

No, I don't think I do sir. You know something about God...didn't you yourself just say:

You cannot know, and neither can I.

Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. Then everything becomes even more interesting when you say:

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

I'm sorry, I meant to say there "God is not entirely non temporal" ...which matches what else I was saying there.

To reiterate: we cannot know fully, but we can know in part. I might not be able to know if at any point you become God, but I can know if your acts fall in line with a notion of God.

If he is partly physical, how can you determine that this physical part is actually of God? If he is "not entirely physical" that means part of him is, in which case observing him should not be a problem.

Indeed it shouldn't be a problem. God is in his whole creation. You are made up of God. This entire physical reality is. So you just have to observe reality to observe the physical incarnation of God.

This is of course given a particular assumption, and you are not required to adopt that assumption. You can assume something else, or nothing.

Again you assume that God is in its creation (you also assume God is a man by the consistent use of "his/him" but that is an aside...it is still rather annoying though, sorry)...what about the possibility that, for argument's sake, there is a God that just "doesn't give a shit," in the words of George Carlin. You automatically dismiss the deist position. There is a more fundamental problem with what you said, though, and it is in brackets below...but we can save that for another discussion momentarily.

"Him" is a conventional address. I couldn't give a rats ass but use the convention anyway. We don't need to complicate things further I think.

God "not giving a shit" wouldn't be consistent with a coherent logical model of God. It's really that simple.