Too much focus on definitions?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, it's not another issue. This thread is about definitions. The ones in the dictionary are useless for a serious discussion of god. For example:

I've in the past only made the logical argument that because we haven't surveyed all of space and time, we cannot rule out god(s) existing.

You are not making any sort of logical argument when the subject of the argument is undefined. The best you can do here is to say that someday we might discover something that some people might define as god, more or less.

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

Science is only one arena where definitions may differ.

Again, I fail to see where it was stated that we are talking about science. Maybe you could show us?

 

[T'ai Chi]

You are not making any sort of logical argument when the subject of the argument is undefined.

But god is defined. It is right there in the dictionary. If the definitions aren't suitable for Paul, that is another issue.

Most people are not confused with what 'creator of the universe' means. It means something that created (look that word up) the (look that up too) universe (ditto).

 

[Mercutio]

Again, I fail to see where it was stated that we are talking about science. Maybe you could show us?

Thank you for illustrating my point.

 

[Hitch]

flobble bobble blop yim yam widdley woooo oshtenpopple gurby yip yip yip nish-nash nockle nockle opfem magurby voey Ahh! “Wurby tictoc?”

“quefoxenjib masaloouterp!” bim-burm nurgle shliptog afttowicky wicky wicky erm addmuksle slibberyjert!

 

[drfrank]

flobble bobble blop yim yam widdley woooo oshtenpopple gurby yip yip yip nish-nash nockle nockle opfem magurby voey Ahh! “Wurby tictoc?”

“quefoxenjib masaloouterp!” bim-burm nurgle shliptog afttowicky wicky wicky erm addmuksle slibberyjert!

How dare you! My mother was a saint!

 

[Z]

That's it... everybody line up for some upshaftmonkeyslapping.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Most people are not confused with what 'creator of the universe' means. It means something that created (look that word up) the (look that up too) universe (ditto).

Did the universe actually have a cause? What does it mean to create it? How many of them? When? Where? What was there before it was created? Who created the creator? Does he reside in the universe? If not, where is he? Is he an entity or just a concept?

The dictionary definitions are too glib to be worth much of anything.

~~ Paul

 

[Melendwyr]

Likewise, 'universe' is used far too casually in everyday speech.

Are we referring to this particular "plane", or the entirety of reality that interacts with us?

 

[gnome]

Words need not be defined to the core "etyms" of their meaning before a discussion can occur. What is needed is simply the avoidance of ambiguity (when more than one definition is possible or proposed) and to be reasonably sure that all participants have the same meaning in mind.

 

[Flange Desire]

But god is defined. It is right there in the dictionary.

Likewise many other words are defined in the dictionary.
But none of those words are required to explain this universe.
Yes, god has been defined - by people who need a god to explain their universe.

Most people are not confused with what 'creator of the universe' means. It means something that created (look that word up) the (look that up too) universe (ditto).

Most people are not confused with the meanings of the words,
but many disagree with the reality of the concept.

Consider a word and its definition ...
Gartblast: The creator of all thoughts.

You could agree that such a word exists, and also agree with its accepted definition, whilst still rejecting the reality of the gartblast.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Words need not be defined to the core "etyms" of their meaning before a discussion can occur. What is needed is simply the avoidance of ambiguity (when more than one definition is possible or proposed) and to be reasonably sure that all participants have the same meaning in mind.

Perhaps, but I'm not reasonably sure what anyone has in mind for the meaning of god.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

But god is defined. It is right there in the dictionary. If the definitions aren't suitable for Paul, that is another issue.

Try telling some Christian that they believe in Zeus or Allah. After all, they satisfy the dictionary definitions. You will find out very quickly how imprecise they consider those definitions to be.

Would you be happy with a person assigning their chosen dictionary definition to your words, or would you prefer to tell people which definition you are using?

Most people are not confused with what 'creator of the universe' means. It means something that created (look that word up) the (look that up too) universe (ditto).

They may not be confused about what 'creator of the universe' means, but they sure don't agree on the creator's methods. Many Deists believe in a creator of the universe, but a created universe is indistinguishable from a universe without a creator. Fundamentalists believe in a creator of the universe that did it according to the book of Genesis. Do you really think those positions are the same?

It is impossible to meaningfully discuss beliefs unless you know what those beliefs are. However, I do agree that many discussions in here come down to semantics. Such is the nature of religious and philosophical discussions.

 

[BS Investigator]

The constant and endless debates over definitions is part of what keeps me from posting on the JREF board much.

The tactic is mostly used by people who are losing debates in order to derail and obfuscate issues. Not always, but often.

 

[Vagabond]

The constant and endless debates over definitions is part of what keeps me from posting on the JREF board much.

The tactic is mostly used by people who are losing debates in order to derail and obfuscate issues. Not always, but often.

Well, there is the old adage if you can't say what you mean you will never mean what you say. I have seen too many discussions end up being about what the person meant to say instead of what they actually said.

 

[Hitch]

"it all depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is,' is."

 

[Flange Desire]

"it all depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is,' is."

But what meaning has "meaning"?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Thank you for illustrating that science was never talked about.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You could agree that such a word exists, and also agree with its accepted definition, whilst still rejecting the reality of the gartblast.

Of course. No one is saying otherwise.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Try telling some Christian that they believe in Zeus or Allah.

Why don't you?

They may not be confused about what 'creator of the universe' means, but they sure don't agree on the creator's methods.

This is irrelevant. Paul is saying he hasn't seen any good (according to Paul) definitions. The point is, that there are definitions out there that are good (according to many). The method of creation people believe is besides the point as far as the existence of good definitions go.