Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Okay. Well, I suppose that's your prerogative.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the word "god" meaningful?
- Thread starter Falvlun
- Start date
Okay. Well, I suppose that's your prerogative.
That we use a word and that we use it meaningfully are two different things.
If all the category means is, "Whatever it is you're referring to when you spoke the word to me," then is it really meaningful?
This is not certainly the case. A history of arrogant certitude has proven our species dead wrong more often than right. Therefore, informed doubt is more adaptable than blind assertion.
... even when applied to atheism.
Yes, despite my obvious bias, the ignostic reasoning doesn't strictly lead to atheism. How can we technically say that we don't believe in something that lacks a coherent scientific or rational definition to begin with? Although, it seems most mainstream notions do lead to theological noncognitivism upon investigation, but perhaps atheism also assumes too much.
This repeatedly leads me to consider "god" as something other than a concrete entity existing in objective reality. I've made suggestions about cultural beliefs, aesthetic expressions, metaphors for that which transcends all comprehension, and/ or an indirect way of describing mystical experiences as some possible alternate meanings to the mainstream dogmatic literalism that fails to have coherence.
I do think a neo-pragmatic argument could be made for some "god-beliefs" themselves in so far as they are intrumental towards human happiness. This might make some unproven beliefs rational to a certain extent, but doesn't help clarify any universal propositions for "god" that could be justified cross-culturally.
This is reasonable to me.
What if the converstaion is simply "Do you believe that gods exist?" I have seen the argument that the word is meaningless unless a specific description is given used against that as well. It is also used as an explanation for why the atheist can't possibly have the belief that gods don't exist since they "don't even know what the word god means".
Do you think that's all the category that the word "god" denotes means?
If you know what the word "god" means, then please tell us what it means.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
How can they believe something if they don't know what it means?
At the risk of seriously derailing the conversation: in what way(s) do you see "Uncaused Cause" as incoherent, irrational, or both?
If the word "god" is for a category of things, rather than a word designating a specific god, then that highly compromises their claim to not understand what the word "god" means.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Is it common for people to believe in the existence of god as a category of things?
Before I get into details, I want you to answer some questions:
1. Do you believe that the word "god" is meaningless as a category designator? In other words, is the word "god" only useful to denote a specific god, e.g. a synonym for Zeus, Apollo, or Thor?
2. Is the word "god" as meaningless to you as the word "zargol"? If not, then I think that is a major issue for your claim to not understand what the word "god" means.
Don't be obtuse. It doesn't suit you.
Would you be willing to suggest a definition of Natural or Scientific Law?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Or, perhaps I'm making an apt point. Which suits me quite well.
Heck, I don't think it's a category.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Yeah, it's why I don't believe in atheists -- not unless some specific definition of God is offered and the guy denies believing in that thing.
But the next theist will offer a different definition of God which the guy might accept, and then he's not an atheist anymore.
So I don't believe that atheists exist merely by their rejection the word 'God.' Obviously that word exists.
Shermana
Heretic
Let me repeat my question but rephrase it:
What kind of empirical evidence and rational deduction are you looking for other than specific textual examples where the word "god" is used to describe an actual being. It seems as if you want to deny even the textual examples for "rational deduction", so is there ANYTHING you would accept or are you looking to find a way to dismiss practically anything that can be used to solidify the concept? What you mean by "Rational-scientific" deduction, when it comes to Semantic terms, means "What I want to believe regardless of the available textual evidence". That's not rational OR scientific. It's more akin to Theological presumption. How would you even propose to put a Semantic/linguistic issue to a falsifiable hypothesis in the first place when you are already not accepting the available textual evidence or the scholars who do the interpreting of this language?
I think the idea of a "Metaphor that transcends all comprehension" is mystical fluff and that the ancients had specific concepts in mind, and the available evidence suggests this.
I also think you don't quite understand the concept of an "Isolated appeal", this is NOT an isolated appeal, this is a standard scholarly view, and as I emphasized, it's a scholarly view NOT held by those with theological agendas usually, but is a secular, historically objective scholarly view. It is those with theological agendas who are most often against this concept of there being actually beings called "gods", linguistically. We're talking about a language issue, of which the scant evidence overwhelmingly agrees.
As for the meaning of the word "power", it doesn't matter what age we're in, the meaning of such is like "A major power" or "he's one of the powers of the company", like an entity, a "powerful entity". Semantic shifts shouldn't be employed when we're examining what the generally understood meaning of a term is, the term doesn't change its meaning in the "Scientific age". If I said the USA is a great power, it doesn't mean it's a great electricity 240 years after 1776.
Last edited: