God is the problem of linguistics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-11-2015, 09:43 PM
RE: God is the problem of linguistics
(02-11-2015 10:35 AM)OceanTherapist Wrote:  So this isn't a debate that I'm having. I was just reading it in a comment section for an article. It's still an active debate currently going on and I haven't decided whether or not I feel like getting involved. The reason I'm posting this is because I've never heard this argument before, that we are limited by our noun based language in describing god. The Theist in the debate claims to have a degree in philosophy. Below I've copy-pasted his stand out comments.

"The Experiential Universe is non-existent and because of that, Experiential Phenomenon is not measurable by the scientific method. The Experiential Universe includes The Mind, Life, Consciousness, Love, Community, Intelligence, Communication, Ideas, Self and of course God. In a way, Atheists are are right, God does not exist, in the same way that Love does not exist, Mind does not exist, Life does not exist, Community does not exist. The problem Atheist have is that they are applying tools to the understanding of God that do not apply to the Experiential Universe. Belief is the only tool that humans have for understanding their own experience. Athiets try to deny belief, but belief is more fundimental to the human condition than reason. Without Belief there is not Reason."

"A degree in Philosophy and 40 years of examination of the subject. My understanding of science and logic is rock solid. Science can measure the Brain, but not the Mind. The connection between the Mind and the Brain can only be explained with Belief. The scientific method does not apply to phenomenon it can not measure."


"you are using your power of belief to explain your own mind. There does not exist any scientific proof that your mind exists. Your mind exists only to you and is not accessable to any other living creature.. Same with Love, same with God."

"God does not exist. God is part of the Experiential Universe, not the Physical Universe. God is not an Object. God is Spirt. God is Intelligence and Consciousness, which can never be measured by science. The discussion of the existence of God is really a problem of linguistics. Our language uses nouns to describe experiential phenomenon when experiential phenomenon is NOT a noun. Experiential Phenomenon is more like a verb. God is Experiential, not Phisical."

"My Belief, my bias, is that the Experiential Universe creates the Physical Universe, not the other way around. Most Atheist believe Experiential Phenomenon is created by the Phisical Universe. That is Humanist belief system. I believe that Evolution is driven by Intelligence and Consciousness, not random events. I believe that Intelligence is encoded in the physical universe. Science is the process of uncovering intelligence manifest in the physical universe."

"Right, God does not exsist, just like your Mind does not exist. Your Mind was created in Gods image, not in the image of your phisical body.The ignorance that most Athiest display is the idea that because the scientific method does not apply to God, that they have proved something. The scientific method does not apply to ANY experienticial phenominonon and experiential phenominon is what YOU are. YOU are not your BODY. YOU are your MIND. YOUR MIND DOES NOT EXIST. The scientific method does not apply to your MIND or to GOD"

"The entire Athiest arguement is based on the limitations of our Noun based language."

"Because we use nouns to describe experiential phenomenon it creates failed form of circular logic. Lets agree that God is not a Noun, just like our Mind, Love, Intelligence, Community and all the other non-things that are most important in the non-thing we call Life. Life does not exist either. There is no such THING as Life."

"Well, I have an advantage in this discussion, YES. I have an understanding of the lingistic flaw in our noun based language that is the basis for the Athiest "belief-system". Unless you understand this limitation of our language, you are not capable of understandind the nature of ALLL experitial phenonominon. So it is sort of an unfair advantage because I have a boruder context that I can put every single one of your arguements into ...."

"The entire Atheist argument is based on appling a noun based language/understanding to experiential phenomenon. Unless you understand that Nouns don't apply to Experiential Phenomenon, you are going to produce failed logic."

"To have a meaningful conversation about the "existence of God", humans need to develop another class of words for describing Experiential Phenomenon. Nouns and Verbs apply to the Physical Universe. Nouns and Verbs do not apply to the Experiential aspect of the Human Experience. There is a fundamental flaw in logic when you apply nouns to the experiential, because the experiential does not exist as a thing. The Atheist argument is simply to point out that God does not exist as a thing/noun only highlights the limitations of language. Nothing more."


At least in his 4th comment posted I can agree that "god doesn't exist". Still is a new argument to me but sounds very flawed.

A degree in philosophy and 40 years experience and he still can't spell worth a damn. I don't see any arguments, just a whole lot of assertions.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: God is the problem of linguistics
If a thing interacts with the universe it can be studied by science. The proposition that the brain can be studied but the mind cannot is categorically false. We probably know more about the mind (psychology) than we do about the brain (neurology). Even in the human mind is made of monads instead of being a function of the brain that wouldn't interfere much with our study of its properties.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: