Maybe we CAN disprove God...

[chriswl]

And this is where the disagreement comes from. If something is not an empty proposition, then it can either "exist" or "not exist". If it is an empty proposition, then the answer is "N/A".

Or at least that is how I view it.

You agree that if something is described by an empty proposition then it cannot be said to exist. So if the word God was an empty proposition then God could not be said to exist. So it would also be wrong to say that God might exist. We've now reached strong atheism - the denial that God even might exist. But you still think it would be going a step further to say that God does not exist. But surely this doesn't say any more?

 

[Taffer]

You agree that if something is described by an empty proposition then it cannot be said to exist. So if the word God was an empty proposition then God could not be said to exist. So it would also be wrong to say that God might exist. We've now reached strong atheism - the denial that God even might exist. But you still think it would be going a step further to say that God does not exist. But surely this doesn't say any more?

No, I think that you cannot attach "exists" or "does not exist" to an empty proposition.

 

[andyandy]

You are confusing words and their referrents again. It can't be meaningless to talk about whether a word has a definition, otherwise we could never say that it had no definition in the first place. And we are not attributing possession by saying that a word does not have a definition.

To "not have" something is merely not to have something. It doesn't mean to possess some quality of "not having".

we are simply going round in circles - your assumption is that "x is meaningless." Despite this you also want to make a claim with regards to x's definition. "x has no definition" attaches a possesive verb to x to make a claim with regards to what x does and does not posses.
If x is meaningless, then "x has no definition" is as logically flawed as "x has a definition."

we seem to have redrawn the battle lines around theological noncognitivism.....If "God" is meaningless, then "God does not exist" is a meaningless proposition. Ayer follows this line of argument to argue that the premise "God is meaningless" leads to ignosticism distinct from atheism.

 

[chriswl]

No, I think that you cannot attach "exists" or "does not exist" to an empty proposition.

But I've got as far as "it is wrong to say that God might exist" without doing that. So I've shown that this position is compatible with strong atheism.

The distinction between this and the final step of saying that God does not exist is itself surely "empty".

 

[Taffer]

But I've got as far as "it is wrong to say that God might exist" without doing that. So I've shown that this position is compatible with strong atheism.

The distinction between this and the final step of saying that God does not exist is itself surely "empty".

It is also wrong to say that "god might not exist", because to do so would attach a property to an empty proposition.

As andyandy says, we are going around in circles. Let's just agree to disagree, ok?

 

[chriswl]

we are simply going round in circles - your assumption is that "x is meaningless." Despite this you also want to make a claim with regards to x's definition.

No, I'm simply saying that if the word x had a definition then it wouldn't be meaningless. But x is meaningless therefore it can't have a definition.

"x has no definition" attaches a possesive verb to x to make a claim with regards to what x does and does not posses.

Oh come on, think about it.

Does "x has no definition" mean that x possesses a thing called "no definition"? Or does it mean that x does not possess anything that could be called a definition?

The second formulation is entirely consistent with the idea that x cannot possess anything.

 

[chriswl]

It is also wrong to say that "god might not exist", because to do so would attach a property to an empty proposition.

No it wouldn't. Things that don't exist do not possess the property of "not existing". They just fail to posses the property of "existing".

As andyandy says, we are going around in circles. Let's just agree to disagree, ok?

Sorry but you're not showing me where you "disagree". You are just coming back at me with counter-arguments that fail.

 

[andyandy]

No, I'm simply saying that if the word x had a definition then it wouldn't be meaningless. But x is meaningless therefore it can't have a definition.

This is false logic - just because A implies B does not mean that ~B implies ~A.

Does "x has no definition" mean that x possesses a thing called "no definition"? Or does it mean that x does not possess anything that could be called a definition?

The second formulation is entirely consistent with the idea that x cannot possess anything.

"x has no definition" means that a claim is made with regards to what x does and does not possess.

and we are indeed going round and round again....

i'm taking my leave of this thread - there is really nothing more to add.

 

[chriswl]

This is false logic - just because A implies B does not mean that ~B implies ~A.

Irrelevant to your argument. This just means that there might also be meaningless things that have definitions, but neither of us are talking about those kind of things.

"x has no definition" means that a claim is made with regards to what x does and does not possess.

"Does not possess" is fine. Its a perfectly reasonable thing to say about something that is incapable of possessing things.

As a man I am not capable of being pregnant. But I am also not pregnant. Both facts are true, there is no contradiction. You would presumably maintain that the property "pregnancy" is not applicable to men and we can therefore say nothing about whether or not any man is pregnant.

I can see that there could be a sense in which this is correct, but only a philosopher could really argue for it (and most wouldn't). What's odd is that no one takes these sort of contorted arguments seriously unless God is involved. Then so many people want to bend over backwards linguistically in order to be nice about God.

 

[The Atheist]

we are simply going round in circles ....

Mate. How long have you been a member here?

That'll be $2

 

[Taffer]

No it wouldn't. Things that don't exist do not possess the property of "not existing". They just fail to posses the property of "existing".


Sorry but you're not showing me where you "disagree". You are just coming back at me with counter-arguments that fail.

Ok, chriswl.

 

[Piggy]

No, I think that you cannot attach "exists" or "does not exist" to an empty proposition.

Of course you can.

Because, as has been mentioned above, existence isn't a quality of the thing, it's a statement about what's real, about what actually is.

If a proposition is empty, is equivalent to talking about nothing at all, then the proposition does not describe anything that deserves to be called "real". It can't be describing anything we could say "exists" without making "exist" a meaningless term (which it is not).

If you can't attach "exists" to an empty proposition, then it cannot describe anything which might exist.

 

[Taffer]

Of course you can.

Because, as has been mentioned above, existence isn't a quality of the thing, it's a statement about what's real, about what actually is.

If a proposition is empty, is equivalent to talking about nothing at all, then the proposition does not describe anything that deserves to be called "real". It can't be describing anything we could say "exists" without making "exist" a meaningless term (which it is not).

If you can't attach "exists" to an empty proposition, then it cannot describe anything which might exist.

Ok Piggy.

ETA: It comes down to how you view propositions and such. This isn't really a topic for this thread. If you wish to discuss it, fine, but in all honesty, I'm not too interested in doing so, which is why I am bowing out. If you wish to view this as a confession of 'defeat', so be it, I'm not too fussed.

 

[Piggy]

But what about the definition "God is the force which created the universe, and did so intentionally". How could you ever disprove that?

Or what about "God created the universe as if he did not". Unfalsifiable.

I'd dismiss the second one because God is undefined.

The first one is interesting. Intention demands some sort of consciousness or intelligence. And in fact, this is one of the most pervasive attributes of God, outside of abstract (non)definitions.

So by this definition, if we were to discover a conscious or intelligent force responsible for the creation of our universe, it would be God.

To say that God is what intentionally created our universe, we must either mean that God is a term we understand and it refers to the force which btw intentionally created our universe, or that God = whatever force intentionally created our universe.

Since God is given no other definition, we're left with the latter option.

Now, suppose we humans develop technologies -- and it's not unthinkable -- which spawn universes, ones which interface with ours merely tangentially. If intelligent beings evolved within one of these, we could be described as the force which intentionally created their universe. So it's not unthinkable.

If something of that sort were discovered to be true of our universe, though, I wouldn't conclude that we'd found God, but rather that God hypothesis was wrong. And although some (the Scientologists and the Raelians come to mind) might disagree, then what can we conclude? If that could be God, then what couldn't? And if anything could, as long as someone said it did, even if no one had ever believed it or called God that before, and no one could argue definitively against whatever it was, even if it were nothing, then the term is being used so loosely as to allow outright self-contradiction or fatal vagueness -- that is, used in a sense in which it has ceased to retain significance, to mean anything in particular.

So the latter interpretation doesn't work either.

We'd be forced to say, "God is one of the possible forces that might have intentionally created our universe."

So we'd need another qualification. I think this is where "supernatural" has to come in.

 

[Piggy]

I am bowing out. If you wish to view this as a confession of 'defeat', so be it, I'm not too fussed.

Oh, not at all. That was gonna be my last post on it, btw.

There are some axioms we don't share, so yeah, we're gonna disagree.

I think that's established.

 

[Taffer]

Oh, not at all. That was gonna be my last post on it, btw.

There are some axioms we don't share, so yeah, we're gonna disagree.

I think that's established.

Most of your position I do not disagree with, btw. Like you say, it's just a few axioms we don't share.

 

[Taffer]

I'd dismiss the second one because God is undefined.

The first one is interesting. Intention demands some sort of consciousness or intelligence. And in fact, this is one of the most pervasive attributes of God, outside of abstract (non)definitions.

So by this definition, if we were to discover a conscious or intelligent force responsible for the creation of our universe, it would be God.

To say that God is what intentionally created our universe, we must either mean that God is a term we understand and it refers to the force which btw intentionally created our universe, or that God = whatever force intentionally created our universe.

Since God is given no other definition, we're left with the latter option.

Now, suppose we humans develop technologies -- and it's not unthinkable -- which spawn universes, ones which interface with ours merely tangentially. If intelligent beings evolved within one of these, we could be described as the force which intentionally created their universe. So it's not unthinkable.

If something of that sort were discovered to be true of our universe, though, I wouldn't conclude that we'd found God, but rather that God hypothesis was wrong. And although some (the Scientologists and the Raelians come to mind) might disagree, then what can we conclude? If that could be God, then what couldn't? And if anything could, as long as someone said it did, even if no one had ever believed it or called God that before, and no one could argue definitively against whatever it was, even if it were nothing, then the term is being used so loosely as to allow outright self-contradiction or fatal vagueness -- that is, used in a sense in which it has ceased to retain significance, to mean anything in particular.

So the latter interpretation doesn't work either.

We'd be forced to say, "God is one of the possible forces that might have intentionally created our universe."

So we'd need another qualification. I think this is where "supernatural" has to come in.

I must confess this is a good critique of that definition.

If I was ever in a debate, I'd want you on my team.

 

[BillyJoe]

I must confess this is a good critique of that definition.

It is.
But it was done a few pages back by Chris, though in not so many words.
And I think it shows that a definition of god without the supernatural bit, is not god (either that or anything can be god as Piggy puts it).

So, it seems our question really comes down to: "Can the supernatural be disproven?"

 

[Taffer]

s down to: "Can the supernatural be disproven?"

I wouldn't agree that God cannot be defined without supernatural, but that isn't important. There is a thread somewhere where I outlined my disproof of "supernatural" given a certain definition of "supernatural".

 

[Lonewulf]

My thoughts; I'm not sure if this is what Taffer used as an argument, but it's my thoughts on the "supernatural":

If it occurs within this universe, it is natural and can be traced; there is a reason for almost everything. I only say "almost everything" because someone will probably feel like bringing up quantum whatsitdonuts, and I don't feel like arguing the point.

Either way, if anything happens within this universe, there is a reason, even if that reason may exist outside of the universe. Nothing is, in the end, unexplainable; though it may be very difficult to trace.

Supernatural, to me, is an Argument from Ignorance; you cannot explain it, therefore it is unnatural. It reminds me of those that see edited photos and film of "ghosts", and then proclaim it a supernatural phenomenon. They are ignorant as to the photographic editing or film editing; thus, they label it supernatural. (That probably wasn't the best example, but I can't think of a better one).