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: February 25, 2020, 5:57 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
#51
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 17, 2010 at 1:36 am)TruthWorthy Wrote: Fr0d0 wrote: If we can know what he isn't, then we know he isn't the unknown right? Because nothing at all can be known about the unknown. So God can't be metaphorical.

This is a logical fallacy.
"God" can exist as an metaphor, and even the basis of "his" existance can't be proved beyond that, in terms of 'being'.

Absolutely correct - I have friends in the psychedelic community who use God as a metaphor all the time (much to my dismay).
.
Reply
#52
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
People come to realise that the mind in their head is just like "god" Big Grin
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
Reply
#53
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontolo...#TaxOntArg

Sorry guys, (found myself out of my depth so went GFGI-ing) found the above and started reading.Confused Fall

Now with a bit more understanding I am wondering to what purpose is the thread Knight?? What course are you studying? And further, is anything we are saying helpful??

As to the replies so far I am wondering why persons are (arguing from a metaphysical stand point) so quick to denounce those that are applying physical reasoning when asked to provide proof; understanding that "proof" here is physical. Proof from a metaphysical PoV will never come because by definition it is Meta(beyond) the physical.

So having said all that nonsense......what is the question Knight??Angel Cloud
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Reply
#54
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 17, 2010 at 1:04 am)AtheistPhil Wrote:
(January 15, 2010 at 11:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable.
You still didn't prove it anywhere...seriously.

Then you missed it. Seriously. Tell me how, when you can clearly state what is not God, you can claim this is not logical deduction.

(January 17, 2010 at 1:04 am)AtheistPhil Wrote: God is not confined into the universe, that's why the whole "define it by what it isn't" doesn't work.

Of course it does.. because what we are defining is what is in the universe. Physycal reality plus our thoughts about how this works.

(January 17, 2010 at 1:04 am)AtheistPhil Wrote: the possible definitions of God are infinite, therefore God could be "anything"

But that clearly isn't so. You have to have no theory to start with to make that work.

(January 17, 2010 at 1:04 am)AtheistPhil Wrote: Starting with all the informations you gathered (not X, not Y) about god, we could still define an infinite number of Gods (or ideas of God) with different attributes.

Indeed you could not. You would end up with the same attributes no matter what you called it. And we already called it God.

(January 17, 2010 at 1:04 am)AtheistPhil Wrote:
(January 16, 2010 at 1:00 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If we can know what he isn't, then we know he isn't the unknown right? Because nothing at all can be known about the unknown. So God can't be metaphorical.
If nothing at all can be known about the unknown, then you can't say that the unknown is not God...and you can't say it is God either...I guess.

Indeed it's 50/50. You cannot know either way ...which is how we define it. No one is saying here that they have solid proof either way.


(January 17, 2010 at 1:19 am)theVOID Wrote: Fr0d0 has unknowingly created a God of the gaps argument it would seem, for if to find out what God is you must find out what God is not, and nothing ever discovered by man is God, then God is entirely dependent on what we don't know, and the more we learn isn't God there are less and less attributes than can be God.

Your talking from your anus here VOID. Wrong subject dude... science class in down the hall.

ROFLOL


(January 17, 2010 at 1:36 am)TruthWorthy Wrote: Fr0d0 wrote: If we can know what he isn't, then we know he isn't the unknown right? Because nothing at all can be known about the unknown. So God can't be metaphorical.

This is a logical fallacy.
"God" can exist as an metaphor, and even the basis of "his" existance can't be proved beyond that, in terms of 'being'.

You're being facetious TW. Evie's suggestion is that God is purely metaphorical. Logical proof is available.
Reply
#55
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 17, 2010 at 7:02 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Logical proof is available.

Oh really?

I have yet to see any.
[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
#56
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
Then you aren't thinking Zen.
Reply
#57
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 17, 2010 at 7:08 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Then you aren't thinking Zen.

You want to provide some then?
(January 17, 2010 at 7:02 am)fr0d0 Wrote:
(January 17, 2010 at 1:19 am)theVOID Wrote: Fr0d0 has unknowingly created a God of the gaps argument it would seem, for if to find out what God is you must find out what God is not, and nothing ever discovered by man is God, then God is entirely dependent on what we don't know, and the more we learn isn't God there are less and less attributes than can be God.

Your talking from your anus here VOID. Wrong subject dude... science class in down the hall.

ROFLOL

You want to explain why for a change rather than being dismissive as you usually are?
.
Reply
#58
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 17, 2010 at 7:14 am)theVOID Wrote:
(January 17, 2010 at 7:08 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Then you aren't thinking Zen.

You want to provide some then?

You want me to think for you!? Confused Fall


(January 17, 2010 at 7:14 am)theVOID Wrote:
(January 17, 2010 at 7:02 am)fr0d0 Wrote:
(January 17, 2010 at 1:19 am)theVOID Wrote: Fr0d0 has unknowingly created a God of the gaps argument it would seem, for if to find out what God is you must find out what God is not, and nothing ever discovered by man is God, then God is entirely dependent on what we don't know, and the more we learn isn't God there are less and less attributes than can be God.

Your talking from your anus here VOID. Wrong subject dude... science class in down the hall.

ROFLOL

You want to explain why for a change rather than being dismissive as you usually are?

Nothing in science proves the attributes of God false. Please stump up and show me how. What we know/ don't know in the field of science impacts zero on our thoughts on God.
Reply
#59
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 17, 2010 at 7:20 am)fr0d0 Wrote:
(January 17, 2010 at 7:14 am)theVOID Wrote:
(January 17, 2010 at 7:08 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Then you aren't thinking Zen.

You want to provide some then?

You want me to think for you!? Confused Fall

We both know i was talking about the logical proof you claim exists, now either deliver or admit you can't provide it.

Quote:
(January 17, 2010 at 7:14 am)theVOID Wrote:
(January 17, 2010 at 7:02 am)fr0d0 Wrote:
(January 17, 2010 at 1:19 am)theVOID Wrote: Fr0d0 has unknowingly created a God of the gaps argument it would seem, for if to find out what God is you must find out what God is not, and nothing ever discovered by man is God, then God is entirely dependent on what we don't know, and the more we learn isn't God there are less and less attributes than can be God.

Your talking from your anus here VOID. Wrong subject dude... science class in down the hall.

ROFLOL

You want to explain why for a change rather than being dismissive as you usually are?

Nothing in science proves the attributes of God false. Please stump up and show me how. What we know/ don't know in the field of science impacts zero on our thoughts on God.

Never claimed they did, that was not in any way what my post was about.

You claim you need to know what God isn't to know what God is and by that logic God could be anything that we don't already know he is not. It therefore stands to reason that the more things we know aren't god, the less things he could be, and considering the fact that you cannot prove anything that he IS, you have a god of the gaps argument.
.
Reply
#60
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 17, 2010 at 7:08 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Then you aren't thinking Zen.

What do my mental process' have to with it?

You have made the claim that logical proof is available.

The onus is on you to back up that claim.

And while Science may not be able to disprove the existence of a God.

It certainly can disprove the God of Abraham.

I have encountered this before with other Christians.

They make claims like this and when you challenge them to produce proof or evidence

they retaliate with insults.
[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



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A contradiction in the liberal view of gender shadow 64 6880 September 18, 2017 at 3:40 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Devil's advocate for why ontology is meaningless and vacuous. Edwardo Piet 76 4296 September 12, 2016 at 3:48 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Cynical view of happiness. paulpablo 77 4760 July 10, 2016 at 9:55 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  My View on Belief vs. Knowledge Grandizer 29 5178 March 4, 2015 at 7:12 pm
Last Post: Humanoid Escapee
Question One thing that makes you doubt your own world view? Tea Earl Grey Hot 9 2298 July 14, 2013 at 4:06 pm
Last Post: Something completely different



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)