igtheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2014, 07:45 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 07:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 07:37 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Strange how only you take issue with the definitions of God taught at Biola.

Did you request to go there and get denied or something? Seems you have a personal vendetta against them.... Weeping

Hahahaha. Nice try at evasion. I KNEW that's where you went.
Listen dearie, do you have any idea what % they accept ? Like 85 ?
I go to real schools. So, you can't define the word "god", then, and as usual won't.
And BTW so you just magically polled all the igtheists and discovered what they think about Biola's crap definitions.
Why would anyone have a vendetta against Biola. The entire planet knows it's the worst school in the country.

I figured you would have said Liberty was. Blink

And no I live in North Carolina. Never been to LA.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 07:58 PM
igtheism
(17-05-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 07:17 AM)John Wrote:  Indulge me.

In a chapter of his 1936 book Language, Truth, and Logic, A. J. Ayer argued that one could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical.

This reasoning was based on the "verification principle" espoused by logical positivists in the early twentieth century.

Logical positivists' verifiability principle—that only statements about the world that are empirically verifiable or logically necessary are cognitively meaningful—cast theology, metaphysics, and evaluative judgements, such as ethics and aesthetics, as cognitively meaningless "pseudostatements" that were but emotively meaningful.[1] The verificationist program's fundamental suppositions had varying formulations, which evolved from the 1920s to 1950s into the milder version logical empiricism.[2] Yet all three of verificationism's shared basic suppositions—verifiability criterion, analytic/synthetic gap, and observation/theory gap[3]—were by the 1960s found irreparably untenable, signaling the demise of verificationism and, with it, of the entire movement launched by logical positivism.

So no I would recommend you not label yourself as an igtheist because in doing so, you would be aligning yourself with a self-refuting position that has been abandoned by those in the academy for half a century.

Thumbsup

Except for the last paragraph, copied from
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 09:16 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 07:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 07:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Hahahaha. Nice try at evasion. I KNEW that's where you went.
Listen dearie, do you have any idea what % they accept ? Like 85 ?
I go to real schools. So, you can't define the word "god", then, and as usual won't.
And BTW so you just magically polled all the igtheists and discovered what they think about Biola's crap definitions.
Why would anyone have a vendetta against Biola. The entire planet knows it's the worst school in the country.

I figured you would have said Liberty was. Blink

And no I live in North Carolina. Never been to LA.

Oh. Liberty is a *school * ? I thought it was an indoctrination camp.
We all did notice you, as per your usual routine, responded to none of the real questions above, especially where you were asked to provided a definition.
Jebus no likey bullshitters.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-05-2014, 11:13 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 11:16 PM by Monster_Riffs.)
RE: igtheism
Actually Jeremy, I do appreciate you responding. ... Like the other posters, I am confused as to which academy you're referring to. Not what an academy is but more who this academy is? Which scholars, who refuted it and why?

If you're right about this, as in, a school of thought was abandoned, I still don't see how that specifically refutes the term igtheism? Throughout academic history, there have been schools of thought, where it has turned out that the idea as a whole has been abandoned but some of its components have not.

So, if we take the term igtheism in isolation, it holds up. In its simplest form, to my understanding, it is the claim that 'God', is not defined or definable.

I don't think it's as simple as, you give me a definition and it's defined. Because Drich could jump in here and give a completely different definition, so could KC. So from my position of unbelief, God remains undefined. If I had three different definitions and I wished for a conclusion, from a position of unbelief, I would next require evidence. So without evidence and a consensus of opinion which is supported by said evidence, from my position God remains 'undefined'. This is why I have at the moment, a considered leaning towards the term.

If you feel up to defining God, please do so. I ask because the problems I think you will encounter in trying to do so, from a theistic stand point will go some way towards helping you to understand my point of view. I have had these conversations before in real life with theists and the few general things most of them agree on, they usually concede are vague at best and untestable.

I mean things like:-
God is the universe.
God is love.
God is different to us all but loves us all equally.

If anything, this sort of response is actually an avoidance of a definition, they're generic and vague platitudes at best.

Seriously, I would love to get in to this with you but please, try not to be vague or tap dance around the issues. Please give me something with substance, I would love to be wrong, unlike a lot of atheists, I like the idea of eternal life. I'd love to be wrong! Please define God.

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Monster_Riffs's post
17-05-2014, 11:16 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 07:58 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Except for the last paragraph, copied from
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Pfft.

"In your own words" is advice for suckers.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 08:19 AM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2014 09:26 AM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 11:13 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I am confused as to which academy you're referring to. Not what an academy is but more who this academy is? Which scholars, who refuted it and why?

Academia/academy is the community of students and scholars engaged in higher education and research. -wikipedia.

Now, within that broad community, there are sub-communities. For example the community of philosophers makes up one. The community of biologists, anthropologists, chemists, physicists, cosmologists, etc. etc. are all individual communities in the academy.

Igtheism is a concept discussed in philosophy (specifically in the philosophy of religion), not cosmology, not physics etc. etc. It is discussed in the philosophic community.

So when I say logical positivism (which igtheism is based on) was abandoned as untenable by those in the academy, I mean those in the philosophic community. Philosophers when writing about it just usually use the term "academy". Their readers know what this word refers to because they are usually philosophers themselves.

See how that works and how simple it is?

Why was it abandoned roughly a half a century ago?

By the late 1960s, the neopositivist movement had clearly run its course.[41] Interviewed in the late 1970s, A J Ayer supposed that "the most important" defect "was that nearly all of it was false".[42][43] Although logical positivism tends to be recalled as a pillar of scientism,[44] Carl Hempel was key in establishing the philosophy subdiscipline philosophy of science[13] where Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper brought in the era postpositivism.[39] John Passmore found logical positivism to be "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes". -Wikipedia

Logical positivism in the academy has been all but abandoned. A few have tried to revive interest in Empirical verificationism i.e. Michael Martin and Kai Nielsen, but the vast majority of those espousing it are found on the internet. They are usually those who have not bothered to study its history and demise. I have run into a handful in my discussion in atheist forums. None of them knew about its history.

(17-05-2014 11:13 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  If you're right about this, as in, a school of thought was abandoned, I still don't see how that specifically refutes the term igtheism? Throughout academic history, there have been schools of thought, where it has turned out that the idea as a whole has been abandoned but some of its components have not.

An igtheist is someone who does not believe that the term "God" can be meaningfully defined. Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term "God" does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore the term "God" has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed. -wikipedia

In light of the above igtheism stands on the verification principle. If the verification principle falls, igtheism must necessarily fall. If a landslide sweeps away the foundation of a house, then the house, which stands on the foundation, also is swept away.

(17-05-2014 11:13 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  So, if we take the term igtheism in isolation, it holds up. In its simplest form, to my understanding, it is the claim that 'God', is not defined or definable.

if you are an igtheist in the sense that you just need someone who you are talking with to give you a definition of God then that is fine. If you are an igtheist in the latter sense i.e. one who believes the word "God" CANNOT BE defined, then you are appealing to logical positivism which is self-refuting. So while being an igtheist in the first sense is tenable, it is not tenable in the second.

(17-05-2014 11:13 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I don't think it's as simple as, you give me a definition and it's defined. Because Drich could jump in here and give a completely different definition, so could KC. So from my position of unbelief, God remains undefined.

Once again, your reasoning assumes there is some underlying criteria which a definition must meet in order for it to be considered a "definition". This reasoning is an attempt to smuggle in under the radar, the verificationist principle which is untenable.

If you are talking to a Muslim they will define God as the Supreme Being who created physical reality who is Omnipotent, eternal, infinite, etc. etc.

If you are talking to a Christian they will say the same thing but and may add something like, God is omnibenevolent and simple.

Just because different people have different understandings of who God is, it does not follow that God cannot be defined. That would be like saying that since there are over ten different interpretations of quantum mechanics, that therefore quantum mechanics cannot be defined. That is absurd.

Ask the person who you are talking with what they mean when they use the term "God" and interact with that understanding.

It would be intellectually lazy to try and just sweep the whole idea of God under the rug because it is not as clear-cut as you would like for it to be.

No physicist just sweeps quantum mechanics under the rug because there are different interpretations of what quantum mechanics entails.

One in their pursuit of truth, must be dilligent and vigorous in their pursuit, leaving no stone unturned until they arrive at their destination.

(17-05-2014 11:13 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  If I had three different definitions and I wished for a conclusion, from a position of unbelief, I would next require evidence. So without evidence and a consensus of opinion which is supported by said evidence, from my position God remains 'undefined'. This is why I have at the moment, a considered leaning towards the term.

A number of philosophers of religion and theologians DO have a consensus of opinion on what "God" is.

Taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The object of attitudes valorized in the major religious traditions is typically regarded as maximally great. Conceptions of maximal greatness differ but theists believe that a maximally great reality must be a maximally great person or God. Theists largely agree that a maximally great person would be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and all good. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

Theists believe that even though the object of their ultimate concern transcends all finite realities it is more like a person than anything else with which we are ordinarily familiar, and typically conceptualize it as a maximally perfect person. Persons are rational agents, however—beings who have beliefs about themselves and the world and act on the basis of them. The major theistic traditions have therefore described ultimate reality as an omniscient mind and an omnipotent will. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

Most theists agree that God is (in Ramanuja's words) the “supreme self” or person—omniscient, omnipotent, and all good. But classical Christian theists have also ascribed four “metaphysical attributes” to God—simplicity, timelessness, immutability, and impassibility. The doctrine of simplicity states that each of God's real or intrinsic properties is identical with his other real or intrinsic properties, and with his being or nature. God's knowledge is identical with his power, for example, and both are identical with his being. Just as “Thomas Jefferson” and “the third president of the United States” have different meanings but refer to the same person, so “the knowledge of God” and “the power of God,” although differing in meaning, refer to the same reality, namely, the infinitely perfect divine life or activity.

Many classical western theists have also thought that God is timeless—altogether outside of time. God resembles abstract objects like numbers or propositions in having no temporal location or extension. God isn't an abstract object, of course, but an infinitely perfect life or activity. One shouldn't think of this life and activity as being in time, however—not even as everlasting. Thus God timelessly knows and wills that conscious life will emerge on earth after certain events and before others. But while temporality is a property of what God knows and wills, it isn't a property of God's act of knowledge or will. The objects of God's knowledge and act of will are in time but God himself and his activity are not.

God is also believed to be immutable. Something is immutable if its real properties can't change. Immutability follows from God's simplicity. An object undergoes real change when it loses one real property and/or acquires another. Real change thus entails that some of the object's real properties aren't identical. (If P, Q, and R are real properties, and x retains P through a change but loses Q and acquires R, then P, Q, and R are different properties.) So if God is simple, he can't undergo real change. God's immutability also follows from his timelessness since change entails a temporal transition from one state to another.

Finally, classical western theists have thought that God is impassible. God creates, sustains, and governs the world. It depends on him both for its being and for its qualities. But nothing acts on God or causally affects him. While the world is affected by God, God is not affected by it.

Why think that the metaphysical attributes are perfections? For several reasons. Most religious traditions stress the imperfections of the temporal order. The space-time world is a world in constant flux. Nothing in it is permanent or secure. All temporal values are threatened and ultimately lost. In human experience, complexity, time, change, and dependency are bound up with loss and imperfection. It thus isn't surprising that religiously sensitive people often conclude that a maximally perfect reality must be free from them. Moreover, this conclusion is reinforced by the experiences of Christian and other mystics who claim to have glimpsed a divine reality exhibiting the metaphysical attributes—a holy unity transcending distinctions and time and change, wholly active and never passive, and upon which they and everything else are absolutely dependent. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

(17-05-2014 11:13 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  If you feel up to defining God, please do so. I ask because the problems I think you will encounter in trying to do so, from a theistic stand point will go some way towards helping you to understand my point of view. I have had these conversations before in real life with theists and the few general things most of them agree on, they usually concede are vague at best and untestable.

I mean things like:-
God is the universe.
God is love.
God is different to us all but loves us all equally.

If anything, this sort of response is actually an avoidance of a definition, they're generic and vague platitudes at best.

Seriously, I would love to get in to this with you but please, try not to be vague or tap dance around the issues. Please give me something with substance, I would love to be wrong, unlike a lot of atheists, I like the idea of eternal life. I'd love to be wrong! Please define God.

I have provided the proverbial tip of the iceberg with regards to the aforementioned attributes of the God of monotheism.

I will close by remarking on your last statement.

You said:

"I would love to be wrong, unlike a lot of atheists, I like the idea of eternal life. I'd love to be wrong!"

King Solomon, inspired by God, writes in Ecclesiastes that He (God) has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.

You long for eternity like a newborn babe longs for its mother's milk. You do so because it is in your nature. You are an eternal being in a mortal body. This longing and restlessness you are experiencing means that God is drawing you for one hath said:

"You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you." Saint Augustine, Early Church Father and Doctor of the Church (Confessions, 1,1.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 08:58 AM
RE: igtheism
(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So when I say logical positivism (which igtheism is based on) was abandoned as untenable by those in the academy, I mean those in the philosophic community.

Hey, that wasn't so hard, now, was it?

The problem remains that the philosophical community is no such thing.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Philosophers when writing about it just usually use the term "academy". Their readers know what this word refers to because they are usually philosophers themselves.

No, they don't.

You apparently do, but then, you're special like that.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why was it abandoned roughly a century ago?

By the late 1960s, the neopositivist movement had clearly run its course.[41]

The late 1960s was not roughly a century ago. Thanks for playing!

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Logical positivism in the academy has been all but abandoned. A few have tried to revive interest in Empirical verificationism i.e. Michael Martin and Kai Nielsen, but the vast majority of those espousing it are found on the internet. They are usually those who have not bothered to study its history and demise. I have run into a handful in my discussion in atheist forums. None of them knew about its history.

Because you're dishonest, you've made several conflations and equivocations. The work of Popper and Kuhn is nothing remotely like what you attempt to suggest.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  In light of the above igtheism stands on the verification principle.

Nope. Thanks for playing!

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  f the verification principle falls, igtheism must necessarily fall. If a landslide sweeps away the foundation of a house, then the house, which stands on the foundation, also is swept away.

Apparently you don't understand the fundamental difference between verification and falsifiability.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  if you are an igtheist in the sense that you just need someone who you are talking with to give you a definition of God then that is fine. If you are an igtheist in the latter sense i.e. one who believes the word "God" CANNOT BE defined, then you are appealing to logical positivism which is self-refuting. So while being an igtheist in the first sense is tenable, it is not tenable in the second.

Once again - not true. Oh, well.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Once again, your reasoning assumes there is some underlying criteria which a definition must meet in order for it to be considered a "definition". This reasoning is an attempt to smuggle in under the radar, the verificationist principle which is untenable.

Nope. Thanks for playing.

Definitions have to be meaningful. Or else they are meaningless. Even a special little guy like you can understand that, right?

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If you are talking to a Muslim they will define God as the Supreme Being who created physical reality who is Omnipotent, eternal, infinite, etc. etc.

If you are talking to a Christian they will say the same thing but and may add something like, God is omnibenevolent and simple.

And "omnipotent", "eternal", "infinite", "omnibenevolent" etc are meaningless, incoherent terms.

Funny, that.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Just because different people have different understandings of who God is, it does not follow that God cannot be defined. That would be like saying that since there are over ten different interpretations of quantum mechanics, that therefore quantum mechanics cannot be defined. That is absurd.

You do not know anything about quantum mechanics. I would highly recommend you avoid the topic.

Excellent job continuing to equivocate between the existence of a definition and the meaningfulness of a definition. Classic apologist disingenuousness.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  A number of philosophers of religion and theologians DO have a consensus of opinion on what "God" is.

Taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

At least you're citing your copypasta now.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The object of attitudes valorized in the major religious traditions is typically regarded as maximally great. Conceptions of maximal greatness differ but theists believe that a maximally great reality must be a maximally great person or God. Theists largely agree that a maximally great person would be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and all good.

Uh, champ? Can you read?

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  A number of philosophers of religion and theologians DO have a consensus of opinion on what "God" is.
(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The object ... in the major religious traditions is typically regarded as maximally great. Conceptions of maximal greatness differ but theists believe that a maximally great reality must be a maximally great person or God.

Yes. I often find consensus to be made of disagreement.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Theists believe that even though the object of their ultimate concern transcends all finite realities it is more like a person than anything else with which we are ordinarily familiar, and typically conceptualize it as a maximally perfect person.

Rendering it, conveniently, subjective and unfalsifiable.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Persons are rational agents, however—beings who have beliefs about themselves and the world and act on the basis of them. The major theistic traditions have therefore described ultimate reality as an omniscient mind and an omnipotent will.

Define "omniscient". Define "mind". Define "omnipotent". Define "will".

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Many classical western theists have also thought that God is timeless—altogether outside of time. God resembles abstract objects like numbers or propositions in having no temporal location or extension. God isn't an abstract object, of course, but an infinitely perfect life or activity.

Apologists: making vapid fiat assertions for fun and profit!

I like that "of course". It strikes the perfect blend of ignorant and smarmy.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  One shouldn't think of this life and activity as being in time, however—not even as everlasting. Thus God timelessly knows and wills that conscious life will emerge on earth after certain events and before others. But while temporality is a property of what God knows and wills, it isn't a property of God's act of knowledge or will. The objects of God's knowledge and act of will are in time but God himself and his activity are not.

Oh, look, word salad.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  God is also believed to be immutable. Something is immutable if its real properties can't change. Immutability follows from God's simplicity. An object undergoes real change when it loses one real property and/or acquires another. Real change thus entails that some of the object's real properties aren't identical. (If P, Q, and R are real properties, and x retains P through a change but loses Q and acquires R, then P, Q, and R are different properties.) So if God is simple, he can't undergo real change. God's immutability also follows from his timelessness since change entails a temporal transition from one state to another.

Yes, but how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Finally, classical western theists have thought that God is impassible. God creates, sustains, and governs the world. It depends on him both for its being and for its qualities. But nothing acts on God or causally affects him. While the world is affected by God, God is not affected by it.

Funny how the old testament authors didn't seem to know that, what with the finite and reactive god they kept writing about.

Your pathetic rambling is bad and you should feel bad.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
18-05-2014, 09:31 AM
RE: igtheism
(18-05-2014 08:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The late 1960s was not roughly a century ago. Thanks for playing!

I corrected the error. Thank you. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 12:21 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2014 12:26 PM by rampant.a.i..)
igtheism
(18-05-2014 08:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So when I say logical positivism (which igtheism is based on) was abandoned as untenable by those in the academy, I mean those in the philosophic community.

Hey, that wasn't so hard, now, was it?

The problem remains that the philosophical community is no such thing.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Philosophers when writing about it just usually use the term "academy". Their readers know what this word refers to because they are usually philosophers themselves.

No, they don't.

You apparently do, but then, you're special like that.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why was it abandoned roughly a century ago?

By the late 1960s, the neopositivist movement had clearly run its course.[41]

The late 1960s was not roughly a century ago. Thanks for playing!

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Logical positivism in the academy has been all but abandoned. A few have tried to revive interest in Empirical verificationism i.e. Michael Martin and Kai Nielsen, but the vast majority of those espousing it are found on the internet. They are usually those who have not bothered to study its history and demise. I have run into a handful in my discussion in atheist forums. None of them knew about its history.

Because you're dishonest, you've made several conflations and equivocations. The work of Popper and Kuhn is nothing remotely like what you attempt to suggest.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  In light of the above igtheism stands on the verification principle.

Nope. Thanks for playing!

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  f the verification principle falls, igtheism must necessarily fall. If a landslide sweeps away the foundation of a house, then the house, which stands on the foundation, also is swept away.

Apparently you don't understand the fundamental difference between verification and falsifiability.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  if you are an igtheist in the sense that you just need someone who you are talking with to give you a definition of God then that is fine. If you are an igtheist in the latter sense i.e. one who believes the word "God" CANNOT BE defined, then you are appealing to logical positivism which is self-refuting. So while being an igtheist in the first sense is tenable, it is not tenable in the second.

Once again - not true. Oh, well.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Once again, your reasoning assumes there is some underlying criteria which a definition must meet in order for it to be considered a "definition". This reasoning is an attempt to smuggle in under the radar, the verificationist principle which is untenable.

Nope. Thanks for playing.

Definitions have to be meaningful. Or else they are meaningless. Even a special little guy like you can understand that, right?

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If you are talking to a Muslim they will define God as the Supreme Being who created physical reality who is Omnipotent, eternal, infinite, etc. etc.

If you are talking to a Christian they will say the same thing but and may add something like, God is omnibenevolent and simple.

And "omnipotent", "eternal", "infinite", "omnibenevolent" etc are meaningless, incoherent terms.

Funny, that.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Just because different people have different understandings of who God is, it does not follow that God cannot be defined. That would be like saying that since there are over ten different interpretations of quantum mechanics, that therefore quantum mechanics cannot be defined. That is absurd.

You do not know anything about quantum mechanics. I would highly recommend you avoid the topic.

Excellent job continuing to equivocate between the existence of a definition and the meaningfulness of a definition. Classic apologist disingenuousness.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  A number of philosophers of religion and theologians DO have a consensus of opinion on what "God" is.

Taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

At least you're citing your copypasta now.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The object of attitudes valorized in the major religious traditions is typically regarded as maximally great. Conceptions of maximal greatness differ but theists believe that a maximally great reality must be a maximally great person or God. Theists largely agree that a maximally great person would be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and all good.

Uh, champ? Can you read?

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  A number of philosophers of religion and theologians DO have a consensus of opinion on what "God" is.
(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The object ... in the major religious traditions is typically regarded as maximally great. Conceptions of maximal greatness differ but theists believe that a maximally great reality must be a maximally great person or God.

Yes. I often find consensus to be made of disagreement.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Theists believe that even though the object of their ultimate concern transcends all finite realities it is more like a person than anything else with which we are ordinarily familiar, and typically conceptualize it as a maximally perfect person.

Rendering it, conveniently, subjective and unfalsifiable.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Persons are rational agents, however—beings who have beliefs about themselves and the world and act on the basis of them. The major theistic traditions have therefore described ultimate reality as an omniscient mind and an omnipotent will.

Define "omniscient". Define "mind". Define "omnipotent". Define "will".

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Many classical western theists have also thought that God is timeless—altogether outside of time. God resembles abstract objects like numbers or propositions in having no temporal location or extension. God isn't an abstract object, of course, but an infinitely perfect life or activity.

Apologists: making vapid fiat assertions for fun and profit!

I like that "of course". It strikes the perfect blend of ignorant and smarmy.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  One shouldn't think of this life and activity as being in time, however—not even as everlasting. Thus God timelessly knows and wills that conscious life will emerge on earth after certain events and before others. But while temporality is a property of what God knows and wills, it isn't a property of God's act of knowledge or will. The objects of God's knowledge and act of will are in time but God himself and his activity are not.

Oh, look, word salad.

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  God is also believed to be immutable. Something is immutable if its real properties can't change. Immutability follows from God's simplicity. An object undergoes real change when it loses one real property and/or acquires another. Real change thus entails that some of the object's real properties aren't identical. (If P, Q, and R are real properties, and x retains P through a change but loses Q and acquires R, then P, Q, and R are different properties.) So if God is simple, he can't undergo real change. God's immutability also follows from his timelessness since change entails a temporal transition from one state to another.

Yes, but how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

(18-05-2014 08:19 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Finally, classical western theists have thought that God is impassible. God creates, sustains, and governs the world. It depends on him both for its being and for its qualities. But nothing acts on God or causally affects him. While the world is affected by God, God is not affected by it.

Funny how the old testament authors didn't seem to know that, what with the finite and reactive god they kept writing about.

Your pathetic rambling is bad and you should feel bad.

It's not his rambling. That entire section, not just part, is taken from:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

Plato.Stanford.Ed Wrote:Many classical western theists have also thought that God is timeless—altogether outside of time. God resembles abstract objects like numbers or propositions in having no temporal location or extension. God isn't an abstract object, of course, but an infinitely perfect life or activity. One shouldn't think of this life and activity as being in time, however—not even as everlasting. Thus God timelessly knows and wills that conscious life will emerge on earth after certain events and before others. But while temporality is a property of what God knows and wills, it isn't a property of God's act of knowledge or will. The objects of God's knowledge and act of will are in time but God himself and his activity are not.

God is also believed to be immutable. Something is immutable if its real properties can't change. Immutability follows from God's simplicity. An object undergoes real change when it loses one real property and/or acquires another. Real change thus entails that some of the object's real properties aren't identical. (If P, Q, and R are real properties, and x retains P through a change but loses Q and acquires R, then P, Q, and R are different properties.) So if God is simple, he can't undergo real change. God's immutability also follows from his timelessness since change entails a temporal transition from one state to another.

Finally, classical western theists have thought that God is impassible. God creates, sustains, and governs the world. It depends on him both for its being and for its qualities. But nothing acts on God or causally affects him. While the world is affected by God, God is not affected by it.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: igtheism
(18-05-2014 12:21 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 08:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Hey, that wasn't so hard, now, was it?

The problem remains that the philosophical community is no such thing.


No, they don't.

You apparently do, but then, you're special like that.


The late 1960s was not roughly a century ago. Thanks for playing!


Because you're dishonest, you've made several conflations and equivocations. The work of Popper and Kuhn is nothing remotely like what you attempt to suggest.


Nope. Thanks for playing!


Apparently you don't understand the fundamental difference between verification and falsifiability.


Once again - not true. Oh, well.


Nope. Thanks for playing.

Definitions have to be meaningful. Or else they are meaningless. Even a special little guy like you can understand that, right?


And "omnipotent", "eternal", "infinite", "omnibenevolent" etc are meaningless, incoherent terms.

Funny, that.


You do not know anything about quantum mechanics. I would highly recommend you avoid the topic.

Excellent job continuing to equivocate between the existence of a definition and the meaningfulness of a definition. Classic apologist disingenuousness.


At least you're citing your copypasta now.


Uh, champ? Can you read?


Yes. I often find consensus to be made of disagreement.


Rendering it, conveniently, subjective and unfalsifiable.


Define "omniscient". Define "mind". Define "omnipotent". Define "will".


Apologists: making vapid fiat assertions for fun and profit!

I like that "of course". It strikes the perfect blend of ignorant and smarmy.


Oh, look, word salad.


Yes, but how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


Funny how the old testament authors didn't seem to know that, what with the finite and reactive god they kept writing about.

Your pathetic rambling is bad and you should feel bad.

It's not his rambling. That entire section, not just part, is taken from:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

Plato.Stanford.Ed Wrote:Many classical western theists have also thought that God is timeless—altogether outside of time. God resembles abstract objects like numbers or propositions in having no temporal location or extension. God isn't an abstract object, of course, but an infinitely perfect life or activity. One shouldn't think of this life and activity as being in time, however—not even as everlasting. Thus God timelessly knows and wills that conscious life will emerge on earth after certain events and before others. But while temporality is a property of what God knows and wills, it isn't a property of God's act of knowledge or will. The objects of God's knowledge and act of will are in time but God himself and his activity are not.

God is also believed to be immutable. Something is immutable if its real properties can't change. Immutability follows from God's simplicity. An object undergoes real change when it loses one real property and/or acquires another. Real change thus entails that some of the object's real properties aren't identical. (If P, Q, and R are real properties, and x retains P through a change but loses Q and acquires R, then P, Q, and R are different properties.) So if God is simple, he can't undergo real change. God's immutability also follows from his timelessness since change entails a temporal transition from one state to another.

Finally, classical western theists have thought that God is impassible. God creates, sustains, and governs the world. It depends on him both for its being and for its qualities. But nothing acts on God or causally affects him. While the world is affected by God, God is not affected by it.

Yea. I guess he could not see the links in my post or something. BlinkShocking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: