Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View

[Edwardo Piet]

LOL

Did I miss a joke?

Well google has never heard of it.

Untrue, it's all over google and in every decent sized dictionary I've looked in. It's also in my small pocket electronic thesaurus.

The reason why you may not have found it is because.... you spelt it wrong. It's 'evince' not 'evincie' as you quoted back to me I just realized.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evince

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evince

And here is its etymology: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sear...hmode=none

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?

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?

Yes but my point is that we'd have to know what a hand is in the first place in order to do that. As with God. Sure, you could see traces of what he is by what he isn't... but FIRST we have to have traces of what he is without what he isn't. Because what he 'is not' makes no sense whatsoever if we don't even know what we're talking about when we refer to him in the first place.

For signs of no God to evince signs of God, first there has to be some evidence that is any God in the first place. There has to be evidence for what he is first.

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.

My point is that the analogy fails because it's a different thing. We know of evidence of the existence of hands so if there's a handprint then that can give evidence to a hand being in there. But how on earth would we know what indication of what God is by what he is not before we even know of what he is at all? What are you referring to exactly?

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

See above.

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?

Of course the grapefruit still 'is' but that isn't my point at all. My point is that it isn't by finding out what 'is not' in a sandpit that we find out what was.... we don't find 'what is' simply by 'what is not'. We only do if it gives evidence of what it is, if it gives any indication whatsoever. Because a squashed grapefruit in a supermarket (to take a thing at random) has also got absolutely nothing to do with the sandpit incident, that is equally in the 'is not' category in regards to whatever was in the sandpit as the trace that was left. The difference is that the trace that was left gave evidence.

You can't just take any random thing that is part of the 'is not' category and call it evidence towards what ever it 'is' - there are countless things that it isn't! - it's the indication that matters. The mark in the sandpit gives an indication.... sure you find out what was there by what wasn't, but it at least left a trace. Which is an entirely different thing to merely it not being the thing that was in the sandpit itself. Mount Everest also wasn't in the sandpit but that's of no help in getting to what was... the squashed grapefruit has also got fuck-all to do with it. Because it's the indication that matters here, just anything that is in the 'is not' category is of no help.

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.

I am not sure what you are referring to here. If you are saying that the universe, nature, and existence itself are God then how? How are you are defining God? Are you merely labelling the cosmos itself as "God"?

A meaningless metaphor?

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.

Well yes my entire point is you must have an idea of what God is first. But I have no idea how you do that. How can you? You cannot know.

EvF