Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View

[Purple Rabbit]

IMHO the statement from St Augustine excludes knowledge of any attribute. So whatever you say about your god, it will be a lie.

That we can't know isn't the same as our logical assumptions being false.

Even when the assumption being made is correct, to claim knowledge of it is a lie.

[fr0d0]

Which seems consistent with Christian theology. Christianity's attributes of God are never complete.

[Purple Rabbit]

Which seems consistent with Christian theology. Christianity's attributes of God are never complete.

That implies christianity knows something about god's attributes. But according to the above that is a lie. It seems christianity has vaporized itself...again.

[Knight]

No. The whole Universe and God is God.

What is the universe, and what is God? You have yet to define God yet you equate it with the universe.
"God is God"--no sir, that's not circular at all!

Again, the point is I don't know what he is: only what he isn't.


It was or also was St Thomas Rabbit: the Via Negativa is one of his 3 ways to understand God.

That is the point! You CANNOT know what God is. You also cannot know what God is not since you cannot observe him.

Also, if God is omnipotent, he could technically be whatever he wanted. As you say, though, if there are things God cannot be, then he is not omnipotent. It's funny you would give God both of these characteristics without even observing him.

[fr0d0]

according to the above that is a lie.

Not so. You introduce semantics which of course is spurious.

No. The whole Universe and God is God.

What is the universe, and what is God? You have yet to define God yet you equate it with the universe.
"God is God"--no sir, that's not circular at all!

Incorrect. You wanted to more accurately understand what I meant by everything being God. Given God the creator we can know that together with creation there must also be creator. So it was simply your logic that was at fault. No need to introduce definitions that haven't been made. For a Theological Noncognitivist you sure do make a lot of theological statements!

Again... the point is I don't know what he is: only what he isn't.

It was or also was St Thomas Rabbit: the Via Negativa is one of his 3 ways to understand God.

That is the point! You CANNOT know what God is. You also cannot know what God is not since you cannot observe him.

Also, if God is omnipotent, he could technically be whatever he wanted. As you say, though, if there are things God cannot be, then he is not omnipotent. It's funny you would give God both of these characteristics without even observing him.

I've demonstrated several times now how you can know about something from what it is not. Observation simply doesn't apply. And to appeal on the grounds of special pleading is fallacious. Just because something is unique doesn't mean is can't exist.

You commit another fallacy trying to disprove omnipotency. See here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-1813.htm...nt+fallacy

[Knight]

I've demonstrated several times now how you can know about something from what it is not. Observation simply doesn't apply. And to appeal on the grounds of special pleading is fallacious. Just because something is unique doesn't mean is can't exist.

No, you have not. You have attempted to, but you have been shown that it is full of bullocks. Observation has to apply. I asked you already to name one thing which we know to exist that cannot be observed. Your answer was the color blue. I countered this. You still insist you are right. That doesn't make you right.

And I did not say that just because something is unique it can't exist. I do not appreciate your straw man fallacy. You have assumed God has a unique attribute. This would not be a problem if it was actually observable. That is the difference.

[LukeMC]

No. The whole Universe and God is God

Worst statement since Edward's infamous "the argument isn't bullshit, it's circular"?

God = Universe + God
therefore
God =/= God

[Knight]

No. The whole Universe and God is God

Worst statement since Edward's infamous "the argument isn't bullshit, it's circular"?

God = Universe + God
therefore
God =/= God

Or just subtract God from both sides and it makes sense.

Then universe = 0. Oh no, look what we've done!

[LukeMC]

Or just subtract God from both sides and it makes sense.

Then universe = 0. Oh no, look what we've done!

Well that's profoundly changed my worldview! hock:

[fr0d0]

I've demonstrated several times now how you can know about something from what it is not. Observation simply doesn't apply. And to appeal on the grounds of special pleading is fallacious. Just because something is unique doesn't mean is can't exist.

No, you have not. You have attempted to, but you have been shown that it is full of bullocks. Observation has to apply. I asked you already to name one thing which we know to exist that cannot be observed. Your answer was the color blue. I countered this. You still insist you are right. That doesn't make you right.

I have shown precisely, and all you have done is to try to introduce objectivity of a non object. What strange logic! The 'blue' answer was not mine, but your fellow atheist. I don't 'insist' that I am right. I presume to be right in the absence of reasonable opposition.

And I did not say that just because something is unique it can't exist. I do not appreciate your straw man fallacy. You have assumed God has a unique attribute. This would not be a problem if it was actually observable. That is the difference.

Well what is your special pleading' point if not a plea to uniqueness?? So you accept that uniqueness is no reason to except the possibility... so you can consider a being without needing to be observable then?