Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View

[fr0d0]

You crazy diamond Evie

Pardon?

LOL

And what's with the new "evinice" word??

Is it a new word?

Well google has never heard of it.

Say you had a sand pit with an impression in it, and the object that made the impression was missing. In this instance, couldn't you know or have a good idea of what made the impression without it actually being there?

Of what being there? 'it'. Well there would be an indication of the shape (and perhaps things like weight, etc) of whatever 'it' is. But we still don't know what 'it' is...

It depends on the detail of the impression. Say it was a perfect hand print - I guess you'd conclude that a hand had made it... without knowing what 'it' is?

We're not talking about 'evidencing' something anyway. We're talking about working out 'something' of the entity in question.

Is talking about spotting indication of something through its effects (as you are with the sandpit example) not talking about evincing? (< there's that word again!!)

Isn't valid indication of something, evincing (giving evidence of) it?

In this example of course we're using a physical medium recording an impression. This doesn't apply literally to reasoning for God.. it just helps to consider the logic. ....Hope that's what you meant.

Now, important: It seems to me that you are not talking about finding out anything what X (God in this case) is, but rather you are talking about traces or effects.

Not so much. I'm not interested at all in physical phenomena. I'm talking about intellectual consideration here.

Because as in the sandpit example, whatever 'it' is there are presumably many many things that 'it' is not - not just the sandpit that left the trace. So it is not itself the act of 'finding out what it isn't' that is helpful. I mean, finding a squashed grapefruit on a supermarket floor and seeing that that also 'is not' whatever was in the sandpit isn't exactly of any extra help at all, even if it is, indeed, part of the category of what whatever was in the sandpit 'is not'.

eh?

The grapefruit still 'is' ...not 'isn't'. The squashed grapefruit is evidence of a squash-ee... we can assume something heavy... are there marks? tyre tracks? A pattern in the grapefruit like a shoe print?

Do you think there are things we can call "not God" Evie? Do you agree this is possible?

I see this as possible. But I am yet to see you give on example of how this in itself helps lead us to 'what God is', it seems to me we have to define what God is first. And traces and effects of him being indications, evincing (giving evidence) is not the same thing as labelling anything he isn't.

Well I would call traces and effects that are not already clearly evident - like the sum of the universe as part God are evident - superstition. There is nothing else.

Of course you cannot say what is definitely not God without thinking what might be God in the first place. So in that respect you are right. We can easily pick a definition from the pot, and use that to say what is and isn't God like.