Too much focus on definitions?

[T'ai Chi]

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?

You're just asking endless questions here.

Again, the definitions may not be as specific as you'd like them to be, but providing a complete account of the word is not a dictionary's purpose.

God(s)'s shoe size is irrelevant to the defintion of god(s).

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

Says Paul.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

God(s)'s shoe size is irrelevant to the defintion of god(s).

I haven't asked god's shoe size yet, because you haven't even told me whether god is a physical being or not! Can we start with the big questions first?

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.

You're just off the wall, T'ai. The definitions are good according to the many who believe in god for emotional and psychological reasons, where the definition is irrelevant. But no one is arguing that people believe in god for emotional reasons.

The people who claim to believe in god for rational reasons have to have a crisper definition. Otherwise they are kidding themselves.

~~ Paul

 

[gnome]

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.

If someone's really doing that to derail and obfuscate, that's not establishing definitions, that's equivocation. Which I agree there is a lot of. Many of us would like to choose what their opponent means when they say a word, makes for a nice straw target.

 

[Mercutio]

Thank you for illustrating that science was never talked about.

And thank you for demonstrating that you missed my point entirely, because (ironically? or alanically?) you were splitting definitional hairs.

 

[Tricky]

Why don't you?

Well ya know, I have. And guess what. They tell me that the dictionary definition of "God" is incorrect.

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.

I am not the first to point out to you that dictionary definitions are useful for general purposes, but if you are going to have an in-depth discussion of a thing, such as "God", then you need more than a cursory definition.

 

[hammegk]

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

~~ Paul

As no one else will ever know the exact meaning you assign to that concept.

 

[Mercutio]

As no one else will ever know the exact meaning you assign to that concept.

or can ever know...

 

[CFLarsen]

Hastur, feel free to start another thread on where I supposedly proclaimed my supposed superiority, but please stick to the topic here and not personal attacks.

Stop polishing your halo, you hypocrite. You are always the first to make snide remarks about skeptics.

I agree about it is important to all be 'on the same page'. I just worry that too much focus on definitions almost amounts to saying that words create reality.

Not create. Describe.

Like others have pointed out, without clear definitions, there is no communication. If we cannot understand each other, there is no argument.

What can I say. You've read the definitions in the dictionary. You not being able to understand them, or not liking them, is not my concern.

Poor attempt at calling quote mining. If you understood the context, you'd have understood that me only quoting a fraction of what Paul said isn't inconsistent with him saying what he did.

If people misunderstand you, why is that not your problem? You are the one trying to make a point here. It must be up to you to be able to explain it so people understand it.

Otherwise, you are merely posing as someone whose intellect is superior to other people.

 

[T'ai Chi]

And thank you for demonstrating that you missed my point entirely, because (ironically? or alanically?) you were splitting definitional hairs.

Well, we certainly are thanking each other a lot. Nice and polite we are.

 

[T'ai Chi]

, because you haven't even told me whether god is a physical being or not!

Can we start with you showing me where I said I claimed I knew?

The people who claim to believe in god for rational reasons have to have a crisper definition. Otherwise they are kidding themselves.

Again, says Paul.

 

[NeilC]

It's not just Paul who says that. It's logic.

If someone, who is freely arguing the existence of god on rational (and therefore logical) reasons then of course, if they are to be able to argue that their logic is valid, they need a solid definition of what is is they are claiming to exist.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Can we start with you showing me where I said I claimed I knew [what god is]?

The people who claim to believe in god for rational reasons have to have a crisper definition. Otherwise they are kidding themselves.

Again, says Paul.

I can infer nothing from this other than that you are arguing that you can have rational reasons to believe in god even though you don't know what god is.



~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

I can infer nothing from this other than that you are arguing that you can have rational reasons to believe in god even though you don't know what god is.

He's said he accepts the dictionary definition(s). So, perhaps T'ai, you could pick one of those definitions and tell us why you think it is rational.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I can infer nothing from this other than that you are arguing that you can have rational reasons to believe in god even though you don't know what god is.
~~ Paul

People do have rational reasons, as explained to you, such as complexity, fine-tuning, and so on.

 

[T'ai Chi]

He's said he accepts the dictionary definition(s). So, perhaps T'ai, you could pick one of those definitions and tell us why you think it is rational.

I said the definitions exist, after Paul said they didn't exist. That doesn't mean I "accept" them.

 

[CFLarsen]

I said the definitions exist, after Paul said they didn't exist. That doesn't mean I "accept" them.

Why do you think at least one of them is rational?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Why do you think at least one of them is rational?

Flew and others argue from complexity and fine-tuning. They think those arguments are rational.

 

[CFLarsen]

Flew and others argue from complexity and fine-tuning. They think those arguments are rational.

I didn't ask what others think. I asked what you think.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I didn't ask what others think. I asked what you think.

I think that there are people out there that believe they have rational reasons for believing.

 

[Dymanic]

I don't see why this is such a big deal. T'ai Chi has made a couple of statements that seem pretty reasonable to me:

there is no 'outside' source that says what a word really means

and

too much focus on definitions almost amounts to saying that words create reality

It seems to come down to how authority-oriented one is. The word outside in the first statement above suggests recognition that it isn't as important to ask what the meaning of a word is as to ask where the meaning is. The dictionary is not a repository of meaning; merely a guide to accepted usage. Like words themselves, dictionaries were made to follow; not to lead -- and failure to recognize this is quite widespread, even within skeptic communities such as this one.