Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 16, 2024, 6:54 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
#11
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 15, 2010 at 10:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So if I were to define you as not vegetable or mineral but animal would that not help define you? Apply that successively to what I can know doesn't apply to you, and you can see that I can come up with a pretty good idea of what you are.

This is how God is defined and it clearly is effective in formulating an idea of what God is.

Your reasoning clearly fails on these grounds. The Theological Noncognitivist has reason to cogitate theology and implodes Wink

And so fr0d0 you defeat your own argument?...epic fail

A child learns what to do by trial and error of what it is not to do, is this not so?? So just what is not "God" since it is claimed that "He" is omnipotent, omnipresent, the original all singing all dancing wish granter, enemy hater??

A definition from Wiki...hopefully helpfulCool Shades

Quote:Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by God?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.
Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Reply
#12
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
I think you misunderstood Kich.

A child learns by trial and error in the absence of guidance, influence and instinct. Trial and error is the worst method. The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.
Reply
#13
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 15, 2010 at 11:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I think you misunderstood Kich.

A child learns by trial and error in the absence of guidance, influence and instinct. Trial and error is the worst method. The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

That's nice dear...

And you are right in as much as a child will learn by figuring out what will and will not work. Not the fundemental components of what it is and why. You are talking about concepts which is no different than the concept of string theory (IMHO)

I am not god?? (FFS don't tell my kids!) Why should that be an argument??? And further, if that is your definition as per your previous posts, then I can not exist...so why are you arguing??
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Reply
#14
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 15, 2010 at 11:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Lmao, what a load of shit frodo.
Quote:Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

Come on then frodo, stop talking and start falsifying! Demonstrate knowledge of God.
.
Reply
#15
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 15, 2010 at 11:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I think you misunderstood Kich.

A child learns by trial and error in the absence of guidance, influence and instinct. Trial and error is the worst method. The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

Since it is clearly falsifiable, please demonstrate how.
[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply
#16
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 16, 2010 at 12:19 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(January 15, 2010 at 11:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I think you misunderstood Kich.

A child learns by trial and error in the absence of guidance, influence and instinct. Trial and error is the worst method. The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

That's nice dear...

And you are right in as much as a child will learn by figuring out what will and will not work. Not the fundemental components of what it is and why. You are talking about concepts which are no different than the concept of string theory (IMHO)

I am not god?? (FFS don't tell my kids!) Why should that be an argument??? And further, if that is your definition as per your previous posts, then I can not exist...so why are you arguing??

That it's no different to the concept of string theory dismisses it how exactly?

You are not God - we can clearly know that... so that shows already there are some things we know are not God which is what I'm saying. Do that a lot more and you can arrive at what God is.

God is in everything but each individual component alone does not equal God. It's quite simple.

(January 16, 2010 at 12:53 am)theVOID Wrote:
(January 15, 2010 at 11:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Lmao, what a load of shit frodo.

Please substantiate that claim VOID. Or STFU Tongue

(January 16, 2010 at 12:53 am)theVOID Wrote:
Quote:Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

Come on then frodo, stop talking and start falsifying! Demonstrate knowledge of God.

I just did. Apparently you missed it.

(January 16, 2010 at 6:05 am)Zen Badger Wrote:
(January 15, 2010 at 11:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I think you misunderstood Kich.

A child learns by trial and error in the absence of guidance, influence and instinct. Trial and error is the worst method. The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

Since it is clearly falsifiable, please demonstrate how.

Same answer to you Zen. Didn't you just see me demonstrate how?
Reply
#17
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
So you are saying that the whole universe is God.
[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply
#18
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
Fr0d0,

How can you find out what is NOT God before you first agree on what God IS!

If God =anything other than what you know what is... then God just= the unknown perhaps?

Which is nothing more than metaphorical:?

But anyway, my point is... : How can you find out what God is not before you first define what this "God" IS? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

EvF
Reply
#19
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 16, 2010 at 8:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You are not God - we can clearly know that...
I'm gonna be the uber-agnostic here and challenge that statement. How do we know he isn't God?
Reply
#20
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
How, fr0d0, do you know that God is not disguising himself in that form? (After all it is said that God "Works in mysterious ways"). Would God not be capable of doing that?

EvF
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A contradiction in the liberal view of gender shadow 64 13846 September 18, 2017 at 3:40 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Devil's advocate for why ontology is meaningless and vacuous. Edwardo Piet 76 9368 September 12, 2016 at 3:48 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Cynical view of happiness. paulpablo 77 10526 July 10, 2016 at 9:55 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  My View on Belief vs. Knowledge GrandizerII 29 8290 March 4, 2015 at 7:12 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
Question One thing that makes you doubt your own world view? Tea Earl Grey Hot 9 3041 July 14, 2013 at 4:06 pm
Last Post: Something completely different



Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)