The god semantics language of argument

[blü 2]

With respect to the "prove it" crowd, they are sometimes disingenuous, unfortunately.

I'm from the 'what are we actually talking about?' crowd myself. To those who assert that God is / gods are not imaginary, but have objective existence ie are real, I ask, What definition of 'God' or 'god' are we using such that if we found a real suspect we could tell whether [it] was God / a god or not?

I mention this because no one has ever offered me such a definition. Do you have one?

 

[Willamena]

To me, its like talking in pronouns but never defining what the pronouns represent. Of course you can have a general conversation using he, she, and it. I just see it empty without at least the basics.

For example, if I go to a country where christiasn never colonized and the residents believed in Hindu gods, we may use the term god to be on the same level, however, (as I witnessed on RF unfortunately), when you are just talking about general stuff, the conversation isnt meaninful. Its empty, rather.

If both sides explained their gods, one to open up a bit to differences, and the other explain more of the nature of their g od, then yeah, conversations would go better and be more meaningful. But just in general? Doesnt work with god and abstract concepts like love and hate. Personal experience

The conversation will get particular when you bring in details and specifics, but the general case doesn't have to be that. It never has to be particular. The atheist can ask about "god" in the general case and get a meaningful answer.

Just like apples.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The conversation will get particular when you bring in details and specifics, but the general case doesn't have to be that. It never has to be particular. The atheist can ask about "god" in the general case and get a meaningful answer.

Just like apples.

To me, it's talking about "fruits" and only X amount of people know they are speaking of apples and the rest of us know you talking about some "thing" in the fruit family but when we ask, instead of saying apples, you guys say we are just talking in general.

Not everyone has the same access to that general knowledge. Kinda like saying we can have a meaningful conversation in a foreign language that one party doesn't speak. God is too vague to speak in generalities. The problem is, people assume you mean the Abraham god or creator or some spirit hanging out talking to people. We can go with the flow, but at the day, I'm thinking "I have no is what they mean" but it was entertaining nonetheless.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm from the 'what are we actually talking about?' crowd myself. To those who assert that God is / gods are not imaginary, but have objective existence ie are real, I ask, What definition of 'God' or 'god' are we using such that if we found a real suspect we could tell whether [it] was God / a god or not?

I mention this because no one has ever offered me such a definition. Do you have one?

I only think there are three sets of "vocal" god believers on RF. Abrahamics, Hindu, and some Pagans. (Generalizing) not many know about the last two, so I guess describe specific things to which abrahamics deity version is the topic of discussion can make things run smoother.

 

[Willamena]

To me, it's talking about "fruits" and only X amount of people know they are speaking of apples and the rest of us know you talking about some "thing" in the fruit family but when we ask, instead of saying apples, you guys say we are just talking in general.

Not everyone has the same access to that general knowledge. Kinda like saying we can have a meaningful conversation in a foreign language that one party doesn't speak. God is too vague to speak in generalities. The problem is, people assume you mean the Abraham god or creator or some spirit hanging out talking to people. We can go with the flow, but at the day, I'm thinking "I have no is what they mean" but it was entertaining nonetheless.

The general case isn't about taking into account differences, be it differences in culture, language, biases, or favourites. It is the general case regardless of any particulars. Introduce particulars, and you've moved away from the general case; but there is undoubtedly a general case.

 

[Sir Doom]

I'm from the 'what are we actually talking about?' crowd myself. To those who assert that God is / gods are not imaginary, but have objective existence ie are real, I ask, What definition of 'God' or 'god' are we using such that if we found a real suspect we could tell whether [it] was God / a god or not?

I mention this because no one has ever offered me such a definition. Do you have one?

I'm sure I tried but clearly failed to answer sufficiently. God is really a title. Like king. In many cases kingship came from birth right, but in the creation of such positions (despite the obvious ruse of 'divine' right) you must agree that the right to rule came directly from the ruler's actual ability to hold the position as much as any legal right to do so.

So, God is anything that can 'pull it off' essentially.

If a being proclaiming to be God can convincingly demonstrate that it is, then people will follow it exactly as if it really is and since that's really all that determines what a God is (that it is treated as a God) Robert is your father's brother.

Essentially, if the god-being thinks it's God, and everyone around that god-being thinks it's God and treats it as such then what argument matters at that point?

It's like a catch-all for master-controller-creator-leader-teacher thing. If some monstrous tree-thing suddenly bars my path in the woods and proclaims it is the God of Trees, I expect it to be the master of, source of, leader of, progenitor of trees. If then all the trees in forest suddenly speak and say, "Yup, that's our God." What doubt could I have?

No, I don't expect to ever meet a God like that, nor do I expect them to exist but virtually any of the myriad concepts of God throughout human minds from the start until now would be capable of a similar encounter, so the requirements for being God become:

Saying so and demonstrating it convincingly.

Naturally, anything proclaiming to be a grander form (omnipotent for example) would need to be more convincing than shaking some trees, to say nothing of 'sending' 4th hand speculation from centuries ago. At least, some of us would need more than that... >.>

 

[Willamena]

I'm sure I tried but clearly failed to answer sufficiently. God is really a title. Like king. In many cases kingship came from birth right, but in the creation of such positions (despite the obvious ruse of 'divine' right) you must agree that the right to rule came directly from the ruler's actual ability to hold the position as much as any legal right to do so.

So, God is anything that can 'pull it off' essentially.

If a being proclaiming to be God can convincingly demonstrate that it is, then people will follow it exactly as if it really is and since that's really all that determines what a God is (that it is treated as a God) Robert is your father's brother.

Essentially, if the god-being thinks it's God, and everyone around that god-being thinks it's God and treats it as such then what argument matters at that point?

It's like a catch-all for master-controller-creator-leader-teacher thing. If some monstrous tree-thing suddenly bars my path in the woods and proclaims it is the God of Trees, I expect it to be the master of, source of, leader of, progenitor of trees. If then all the trees in forest suddenly speak and say, "Yup, that's our God." What doubt could I have?

No, I don't expect to ever meet a God like that, nor do I expect them to exist but virtually any of the myriad concepts of God throughout human minds from the start until now would be capable of a similar encounter, so the requirements for being God become:

Saying so and demonstrating it convincingly.

Naturally, anything proclaiming to be a grander form (omnipotent for example) would need to be more convincing than shaking some trees, to say nothing of 'sending' 4th hand speculation from centuries ago. At least, some of us would need more than that... >.>

The king had a birth-right because he was born to kings. It's not just a title. Jon Snow is a Stark, and there is no king of the north but a Stark.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The general case isn't about taking into account differences, be it differences in culture, language, biases, or favourites. It is the general case regardless of any particulars. Introduce particulars, and you've moved away from the general case; but there is undoubtedly a general case.

How do you talk about god in general beyond using the name in a conversation?

If we talked about god, in general, you and I what meaningful conversation can we have it we don't have the same idea of what the word means first?

 

[Willamena]

How do you talk about god in general beyond using the name in a conversation?

If we talked about god, in general, you and I what meaningful conversation can we have it we don't have the same idea of what the word means first?

You just did. In your post.

You talked about god in general without using a name or referring to a particular, and made a meaningful inquisitive part of conversation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You just did. In your post.

You talked about god in general without using a name or referring to a particular, and made a meaningful inquisitive part of conversation.

Good try. Its not a meaningful conversation.

You mentioned you can have meaningful conversations using the word god without specifics. The English language lets you talk about a topic in general and it makes sense. Not all languages do that; many are pretty point blank-meanings and comments later.

How do you converse meaninfully about god without being more specific in what you mean by that word?

Another example--its like learning a foreign language in a classroom. Sure, you can have a basic conversation understanding "how are you" in context.

But if you want to have a meaningful (well rounded) conversation, it goes beyond using words in a sentence to convey a point.

 

[Willamena]

Good try. Its not a meaningful conversation.

It's not? I'll withdraw, then.

You mentioned you can have meaningful conversations using the word god without specifics. The English language lets you talk about a topic in general and it makes sense. Not all languages do that; many are pretty point blank-meanings and comments later.

How do you converse meaninfully about god without being more specific in what you mean by that word?

Another example--its like learning a foreign language in a classroom. Sure, you can have a basic conversation understanding "how are you" in context.

But if you want to have a meaningful (well rounded) conversation, it goes beyond using words in a sentence to convey a point.

...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's not? I'll withdraw, then.


...

Ha. Well rounded conversations go beyond making points. If thats what people are on RF wanting to do, throw words around, then, of course, you all will split. Only the patient and strong survive.

The nature of online conversations is different than in person or by phone. It is not just using words in a sentence. Whats the use of being on RF i you all are just reguritating words and skip off when either you (people in general) get uncomfortable or their beliefs are challenge insofar they cant think for themselves.

 

[Sir Doom]

The king had a birth-right because he was born to kings. It's not just a title. Jon Snow is a Stark, and there is no king of the north but a Stark.

Indeed, that's the convincing bit if you happen to be from The North. If you happen to be a Targaryan though, you're inclined to need more convincing. Too much convincing, it seems. The Targaryans managed to unconvince The North for centuries with dragons and their very own Stark to declare them King instead... Twice. The Lannisters similarly seem to need more convincing, or at least Cersi seems to. But, so long as those in the North call Jon Snow King, and he continues to act the part, then so be it. I will also add that it took quite a bit more than simply being a Stark to make Jon Snow King and continues to take more. He must, in fact, 'act kingly'. Lead, make decisions, fight wars, etc. Etc. The expectations of his subjects is myriad and subjective (pun intended). Certainly not to the extreme that a deity might need to contend with, but similar.

 

[blü 2]

I only think there are three sets of "vocal" god believers on RF. Abrahamics, Hindu, and some Pagans. (Generalizing) not many know about the last two, so I guess describe specific things to which abrahamics deity version is the topic of discussion can make things run smoother.

Thanks for that.

I'd still like to know how we could tell a real god if we found one. Seems to me that if we can't, we don't actually know what we're talking about. (Imaginary gods, no problem, of course ─ they're whatever the imaginer wants.)

 

[blü 2]

I'm sure I tried but clearly failed to answer sufficiently. God is really a title. Like king.

I fully understand the case you make, but it doesn't seem to me to generally applicable to the way 'God' or 'god' is used on these boards most of the time. I need someone who thinks the term 'god' is meaningful and who also thinks that God is (or gods are) real to tell me how to distinguish a real god.

 

[Cacotopia]

Well, this sure sounds like a thinly-veiled call out. The chosen approach is not appreciated; one could ask the folks who inquire what the purpose is behind such questions. The purpose varies. Sometimes, as @Sir Doom said, it's rhetorical.

In my case, though, I typically ask the questions because they are genuinely important to framing the scope of the discussion. In proper argumentation, one has to establish what the premises are, clearly define one's terms, and then present reasoning that supports a particular conclusion given those premises and terms. Logical argumentation is "nitpicky" (precise would be a better word to use, IMO). Using different premises or terms changes how an argumentation follows, and it is important to establish the intended scope. A discussion about the god of the Bible will look different than a discussion that includes autotheism, for example.

With respect to the "prove it" crowd, they are sometimes disingenuous, unfortunately. They don't establish the premises and terms because they aren't really interested in proper argumentation; they're in it more for the righteous ego trip or preaching than broader discussion of philosophy or religion. I don't like assuming someone is disingenuous though, so I ask clarifying questions. The responses to them tell me pretty quickly what sort of discussion they're interested in having... and whether or not it's one I want to (or an able to) participate in. If someone wants to focus their "prove it" discussion around classical monotheism that's completely fine, but it does mean I'm ill-suited for that discussion and will take my leave, for example.

it's not a call out to anyone in particular. I feel like we are all boxed into a certain type of behavior when having a conversation with anyone else in here or other debate groups. It's anal retentive. It feels like I have to frame a question to people with no deductive reasoning.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thanks for that.

I'd still like to know how we could tell a real god if we found one. Seems to me that if we can't, we don't actually know what we're talking about. (Imaginary gods, no problem, of course ─ they're whatever the imaginer wants.)

I wouldnt know, because there are so many definitions of supernatural gods, which ones do we expect to see if he or she or it does show up?

I dont think its their imagination. I just think they are indoctrinated so much in their beliefs that they cant hypothesis a world without god. Even though we can write fiction books of all topics but cant see differently about the nature of life.

But gods are real; just, many people have unrealistic expectations on seeing their own version of god since there is no one universal definition of it.

 

[blü 2]

I wouldnt know, because there are so many definitions of supernatural gods, which ones do we expect to see if he or she or it does show up?

And whichever one [it] is, if [it]'s real, if [it] has objective existence, if [it] exists independently of anyone's imagination, then how can we tell [it]'s a god? Not until I started turning over the question, What is a real god? did I understand that this is a truly basic problem for thoughtful religious belief.

I know there are thoughtful believers on RF, but so far I haven't found any of them willing to discuss it in those terms.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And whichever one [it] is, if [it]'s real, if [it] has objective existence, if [it] exists independently of anyone's imagination, then how can we tell [it]'s a god? Not until I started turning over the question, What is a real god? did I understand that this is a truly basic problem for thoughtful religious belief.

I know there are thoughtful believers on RF, but so far I haven't found any of them willing to discuss it in those terms.

Yeah. It's hard to find anyone who talks about the nature of any gods existence outside their own. Even pondering it sounds off.

But I'm honestly am atheist. I really do t have any concept of gods and deities to consider them being real and even moreso, interact with humans among all people. I see gods as a cultural construct rather than existing independently of its own accord.

 

[David T]

I think science has already proven god. We are holding on to what's a mystery must be divinity. What's proven is "of man."

But we can't use the word god as if everyone knows the term especially online on RF. While we can't list all the gods, of course, we do need to be mindful not everyone know the Christian, muslim, or jewish god. Even among these three religions, they feel their gods are different.

Even in your reply, I have to stop and think which god are you referring to. I can guess but not everyone has the same background; I certainly dont.

I spend time over in guitar forums. This forum seems this is like acoustic guitar vs electric guitar. Or gibsons vs fenders, taylors vs martins passive vs active pickups, valve vs modeling amps, dynamic vs condenser mics, synthesizer vs drums and on and on it goes.