Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View

[chatpilot]

This is the reason I don't get myself caught up in so called philosophical discussions about god and his attributes and his existence etc. All you gain from this is that if you play with the words long enough even the meaningless things can give you a headache. Circular reasoning has never appealed to me. Congrats fr0d0 on keeping these people on the hook to only end up exactly where you started.

fr0d0 said:
"God is in his whole creation. You are made up of God. This entire physical reality is. So you just have to observe reality to observe the physical incarnation of God."

[Edwardo Piet]

You crazy diamond Evie

Pardon?

And what's with the new "evinice" word??

Is it a new word?

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?

Of what being there? 'it'. Well there would be an indication of the shape (and perhaps things like weight, etc) of whatever 'it' is. But we still don't know what 'it' is...

We're not talking about 'evidencing' something anyway. We're talking about working out 'something' of the entity in question.

Is talking about spotting indication of something through its effects (as you are with the sandpit example) not talking about evincing?

Isn't valid indication of something, evincing (giving evidence of) it?

Now, important: It seems to me that you are not talking about finding out anything what X (God in this case) is, but rather you are talking about traces or effects.

Because as in the sandpit example, whatever 'it' is there are presumably many many things that 'it' is not - not just the sandpit that left the trace. So it is not itself the act of 'finding out what it isn't' that is helpful. I mean, finding a squashed grapefruit on a supermarket floor and seeing that that also 'is not' whatever was in the sandpit isn't exactly of any extra help at all, even if it is, indeed, part of the category of what whatever was in the sandpit 'is not'.

So, what you are talking about is traces and effects it seems to me. Whatever was in the sandpit left traces, or effects. That is the indication, that is the evidence, that evinces, that is valid. Just about anything at all that isn't what was left in the sandpit is of no help, right?

Do you think there are things we can call "not God" Evie? Do you agree this is possible?

I see this as possible. But I am yet to see you give on example of how this in itself helps lead us to 'what God is', it seems to me we have to define what God is first. And traces and effects of him being indications, evincing (giving evidence) is not the same thing as labelling anything he isn't.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

God is in his whole creation. You are made up of God. This entire physical reality is. So you just have to observe reality to observe the physical incarnation of God.

This is of course given a particular assumption

A particular unsubstantiated assumption which makes it indistinghuisable from fabulation. Sure you can fabulate yourself in a dizzy frenzie of megalomaniacal self-delusion to ensure that your god notion is a totally private experience, but it not only detaches itself from verifiable reality but also from common bible interpretation since common bible interpretation asserts that god as a person named Jesus once walked the earth. But the person of Jesus was not at the same time in every atom in the universe. The two viewpoints are unreconcilable IMHO.

[fr0d0]

You crazy diamond Evie

Pardon?

LOL

And what's with the new "evinice" word??

Is it a new word?

Well google has never heard of it.

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?

Of what being there? 'it'. Well there would be an indication of the shape (and perhaps things like weight, etc) of whatever 'it' is. But we still don't know what 'it' is...

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?

We're not talking about 'evidencing' something anyway. We're talking about working out 'something' of the entity in question.

Is talking about spotting indication of something through its effects (as you are with the sandpit example) not talking about evincing? (< there's that word again!!)

Isn't valid indication of something, evincing (giving evidence of) it?

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.

Now, important: It seems to me that you are not talking about finding out anything what X (God in this case) is, but rather you are talking about traces or effects.

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

Because as in the sandpit example, whatever 'it' is there are presumably many many things that 'it' is not - not just the sandpit that left the trace. So it is not itself the act of 'finding out what it isn't' that is helpful. I mean, finding a squashed grapefruit on a supermarket floor and seeing that that also 'is not' whatever was in the sandpit isn't exactly of any extra help at all, even if it is, indeed, part of the category of what whatever was in the sandpit 'is not'.

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?

Do you think there are things we can call "not God" Evie? Do you agree this is possible?

I see this as possible. But I am yet to see you give on example of how this in itself helps lead us to 'what God is', it seems to me we have to define what God is first. And traces and effects of him being indications, evincing (giving evidence) is not the same thing as labelling anything he isn't.

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.

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.

[Knight]

Well google has never heard of it.

Main Entry: evince
Pronunciation: \i-ˈvin(t)s\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): evinced; evinc·ing
Etymology: Latin evincere to vanquish, win a point, from e- + vincere to conquer — more at victor
Date: 1604

1 : to constitute outward evidence of
2 : to display clearly : reveal

Evince--not evinince

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?

If you know it is a HAND print, then you obviously know a HAND made it. This is based upon your observation of what a hand print looks like. We can study prints to determine what made them by comparison.

We can easily pick a definition from the pot, and use that to say what is and isn't God like.

Go ahead, and please explain how as you do so. Please don't start the circle again though. What do you mean, "God like"...remember that there is a difference between what a God CAN be and what is actually observable/definable.

[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

[fr0d0]

You don't have to know what a hand is to make the definition. You have a particular shape quite like nothing else. You have this incomplete idea of God that you're trying to tie down, and this is just a piece of the puzzle.

We don't have living examples of dinosaurs but that doesn't stop us approximating how they might look and act.


If we assume that God created the universe/ was the instigator/ first cause... then all that could emanate from God is part of God. In this assumption, God is in everything and is everywhere (the Christian viewpoint). You assume not, I assume so. You cannot categorically say that I am wrong, therefore everything existent could be part of God and evidence.

You cannot know, and neither can I.

[TruthWorthy]

God is in everything and is everywhere (the Christian viewpoint). You assume not, I assume so. You cannot categorically say that I am wrong, therefore everything existent could be part of God and evidence.

You mean could be evidence if god were to be discovered. It isn't like everything around us is screaming god or anything.

[fr0d0]

No is already evidence of God if you choose to accept it.

[TruthWorthy]

No is already evidence of God if you choose to accept it.

I like that mission impossible tone
seriously though, evidence should probably be suggestive of that you're attributing it to.