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: August 12, 2022, 8:33 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
#1
Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
As my first real post outside of introductions, I shall post my theological noncognitivist view in the form of a challenge:

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?
Live and love life

[Image: KnightBanner.png]
Liberty and justice for all
Reply
#2
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
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.
Reply
#3
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 15, 2010 at 7:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 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.

What does this even mean?
[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
#4
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
That God is defined not by what it "is" but what it "isn't". At least that's what I understood of it.
Reply
#5
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 15, 2010 at 8:09 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: What does this even mean?

What are you referring to?
Reply
#6
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 15, 2010 at 8:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: That God is defined not by what it "is" but what it "isn't". At least that's what I understood of it.

But according to religion.

God is everything, or am I mistaken?
[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
#7
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
A wonderful evasion in my view, fr0d0. Son, I am disappoint.

Still, the question of God remains to be defined, and by your answer fr0d0, it is now expected of you to point out what God isn't and why not everything can be ascribed to one thing or another, thus leaving God "homeless".
Reply
#8
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 15, 2010 at 8:28 pm)Zen Badger Wrote:
(January 15, 2010 at 8:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: That God is defined not by what it "is" but what it "isn't". At least that's what I understood of it.

But according to religion. God is everything, or am I mistaken?

You are being deliberately naive which sorta makes you look a little stupid.

(January 15, 2010 at 8:28 pm)Synackaon Wrote: A wonderful evasion in my view, fr0d0. Son, I am disappoint.

Still, the question of God remains to be defined, and by your answer fr0d0, it is now expected of you to point out what God isn't and why not everything can be ascribed to one thing or another, thus leaving God "homeless".

Likewise
Reply
#9
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
(January 15, 2010 at 7:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 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.
Live and love life

[Image: KnightBanner.png]
Liberty and justice for all
Reply
#10
RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
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
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A contradiction in the liberal view of gender shadow 64 10436 September 18, 2017 at 3:40 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Devil's advocate for why ontology is meaningless and vacuous. Edwardo Piet 76 5188 September 12, 2016 at 3:48 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Cynical view of happiness. paulpablo 77 6096 July 10, 2016 at 9:55 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  My View on Belief vs. Knowledge GrandizerII 29 6279 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 2549 July 14, 2013 at 4:06 pm
Last Post: Something completely different



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)