Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View

[Knight]

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.

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??

Here is the original post:

I challenge any theist to provide a coherent ontology of God. Theists (especially Christians) seem to know that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, but these attributes cannot be applied to any known being.

Theists tend to first define God and then apply it to the God they believe in. This is illogical, as how can one derive the attributes of a thing without first observing the thing being defined?

The original question in essence asks how people apply attributes to God when this God is not observable. The only real answer has been this, with my original reply:

St Thomas, I believe, described observance of God as knowledge of what isn't rather than what 'is' God. That is what the abrahamic religions are based upon.

Already your position of reason fails.

Besides this "God" name one thing which you define by what it is not. Saying what something is NOT does not describe what that something is, so I fail to see how my position fails.

Let us take another concept invented by man: unicorns. Unicorns are not horses. The also are not visible or detectable.

Now that the unicorn is defined by what it is not, any attribute can by applied without it necessarily being wrong. There is no reason to suppose that the attributes applied are correct, however. Unless the unicorn has been observed, applying attributes and then looking for them (or just plain applying attributes and saying looking for it is futile [but it's still there]) is meaningless.

Everything after this just seems to be repeating itself since Frodo doesn't seem to get it.

I'm tired of going in circles so it is time to put on a halt. Let us look at what it means to define something:

1 a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of <whatever defines us as human> b : to discover and set forth the meaning of (as a word) c : to create on a computer <define a window> <define a procedure>
2 a : to fix or mark the limits of : demarcate <rigidly defined property lines> b : to make distinct, clear, or detailed especially in outline <the issues aren't too well defined>

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

Let us now look at what an Ontology is:

ontology [ɒnˈtɒlədʒɪ]
n
1. (Philosophy) Philosophy the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being
2. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic the set of entities presupposed by a theory

By showing what God is not (I don't even think you did this successfully, but even if you had it doesn't matter), you have still done neither of these things. You have certainly limited God (a little), but as it has been said many times already, you can say an infinite amount of things that God is not and we will never get any closer to what God actually is because there are infinite more attributes you could give it. When you use actual physical objects as your analogy, you fail to see that you are defining us by what we are, not by what we are not. Perhaps you did not even noticed that you automatically started giving us physical characteristics, even animal characteristics by narrowing down that we are not inanimate. You could only do that because you have observed already what a human is. If you had no idea what a human was, we could be anything. We could be in anything, or everything, or nothing at all (think about that for a while). If humans were not observable, defining them would be impossible, even if you started with what a human is not, because in order to know for sure what something is not, you must already have an idea of what it is. That is where your logical fallacy comes into play.

Then you aren't thinking Zen.

Hey fallacy Nazi, you are aware that this is a fallacy?

[fr0d0]

OK you're throwing in the towel Knight. It does seem you have no argument, and you admit to saying the same thing over and over.

Your argument:

Besides this "God" name one thing which you define by what it is not.

these attributes cannot be applied to any known being

A claim to special pleading... but then you change this:

It's not the fact that it's unique that I have a problem with. It is the fact that this unique property is not observable.

Nothing exists that isn't observable? Are you gnostic about this? You are categorically saying that God cannot exist?

See the vast majority of us here don't agree with that. We all think you can't know. And if you can't know either, how can you be so bold as to make this claim? I would suggest that logically, you cannot. Your position is untenable.

You have certainly limited God (a little), but as it has been said many times already, you can say an infinite amount of things that God is not and we will never get any closer to what God actually is because there are infinite more attributes you could give it

It has been said many times already, but that doesn't mean that what has been said is illogical. I've answered those points. If you're going to deny logic so completely then what's the point of discussing. You can put your head in a bucket and sing la la la all you like... that doesn't make you right.

One last time: I've already shown that you cannot say infinite things about God. Once you start to define him, you realise what can't apply, and what can apply is listed quite thoroughly by theologians. How can they do this if it isn't possible?

I haven't defined anything. All I've shown is a methodology (amongst many others): Via Negativa.

What you're doing here is choosing to ignore a certain train of thought. That's fine, but don't insist that everyone else willingly adopt your blindness. Intellectual honesty is paramount.

The "observable" here doesn't include the physically observable but intellectual observance of logical thought. You require God to be a physical entity when God isn't a physical entity. Yes you're going to fail with that.

[Purple Rabbit]

according to the above that is a lie.

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

What semantics did I introduce?? Please elaborate.

[Knight]

OK you're throwing in the towel Knight. It does seem you have no argument, and you admit to saying the same thing over and over.

I most certainly am not throwing in the towel, but nice try! I only have to repeat myself because YOU repeat yourself.

Nothing exists that isn't observable? Are you gnostic about this? You are categorically saying that God cannot exist?

That's not what I said Frodo, nor is it anywhere close to what I meant. You cannot say if it does or does not exist if you cannot observe it! It is equivalent to the unicorn example I provided. Sure, it is possible that the unicorn exists, but the way I currently have it defined, it would be futile to discuss whether it exists or not. Same with your God. It is futile to give it any attributes without observing it.

See the vast majority of us here don't agree with that. We all think you can't know. And if you can't know either, how can you be so bold as to make this claim? I would suggest that logically, you cannot. Your position is untenable.

You are a slimy theist, aren't you? Throwing in straw mans seems to be second nature to you. Thankfully I said nothing of the sort. I've been saying all along you cannot know. You're the one who believes because you claim to know something about God. You have claimed several times:

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

Referring to telling us what God is not. For not being able to know, you sure make a lot of claims that suggest you know.

The "observable" here doesn't include the physically observable but intellectual observance of logical thought. You require God to be a physical entity when God isn't a physical entity. Yes you're going to fail with that.

phys⋅i⋅cal
  /ˈfɪzɪkəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fiz-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the body: physical exercise.
2. of or pertaining to that which is material: the physical universe; the physical sciences.
3. noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter.
4. pertaining to the physical sciences, esp. physics.

Just making sure we are clear with what physical means.

You have now finally declared that God is not physical. It took you long enough. Now you're at least moving in some direction!

Tell me, how does a nonphysical being interact with the universe? Then, how do you know? How do you know there is such a nonphysical being to begin with? You are just guessing, but you refuse to admit it.

[Purple Rabbit]

I haven't defined anything.

I agree. Do your homework.

Hint: logic is founded on A = A, not on A= Reality - ¬A

[ib.me.ub]

A little too simple actually.

If god is in everything he is in the gluons that make up brains, he is in every thought that was ever thought, he is in the action of a suicide bomber, he is in the cancer that kills childeren, he is in the crap I shit today, he is in the good and in the bad, he is in the porn business and he is in the missionary, he is in empty mathematical sets, he is in hinduism, slavery, war, peace, vegetarianism and cannibalism.

And as is attested by science he is there doing nothing, weighing nothing, smelling of nothing, tasting of nothing, exerting no force whatsoever, making no sound.

Excellent part definition. If you change he for it, it is much better

I asked you already to name one thing which we know to exist that cannot be observed.

Dark energy. We cannot yet directly observe it. We can observe it's affects, but not it itself.

[Knight]

Dark energy. We cannot yet directly observe it. We can observe it's affects, but not it itself.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. This is an area of science that is still being explored. Scientists have given a name to a force which theoretically must exist due to the observations they have made regarding its effect on other objects:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/scienc...nergy.html

The difference is that dark energy has measurable effects, even if the energy itself is not yet directly observable. God does not.

[ib.me.ub]

Do you mean in regards to your defintion of the word god? By the way, what is your definition of the word god?

Astronomers know dark matter is there by its gravitational effect on the matter that we see, and there are ideas about the kinds of particles it must be made of. By contrast, dark energy remains a complete mystery. The name "dark energy" refers to the fact that some kind of "stuff" must fill the vast reaches of mostly empty space in the Universe in order to be able to make space accelerate in its expansion. In this sense, it is a "field" just like an electric field or a magnetic field, both of which are produced by electromagnetic energy. But this analogy can only be taken so far, because we can readily observe electromagnetic energy via the particle that carries it, the photon.

This part is interesting, don't you think?

[Knight]

Do you mean in regards to your defintion of the word god? By the way, what is your definition of the word god?

Astronomers know dark matter is there by its gravitational effect on the matter that we see, and there are ideas about the kinds of particles it must be made of. By contrast, dark energy remains a complete mystery. The name "dark energy" refers to the fact that some kind of "stuff" must fill the vast reaches of mostly empty space in the Universe in order to be able to make space accelerate in its expansion. In this sense, it is a "field" just like an electric field or a magnetic field, both of which are produced by electromagnetic energy. But this analogy can only be taken so far, because we can readily observe electromagnetic energy via the particle that carries it, the photon.

This part is interesting, don't you think?

It certainly is interesting. I love reading about cosmological mysteries. I don't have a problem calling something a mystery. It is when people begin to assume they know specific attributes of these mysteries with no objective reason that I begin have issues.

I'm not going to create my own definition of "god." It is up to the theist to show where they get their definition from. (Which Frodo has done, but it is far from coherent)

[ib.me.ub]

This is illogical, as how can one derive the attributes of a thing without first observing the thing being defined?

Did you write this? How can you argue aginst something when you won't define what you are argueing against.

Also, no need to walk around the discussion.