History of Christianity [Archive]

Howard509

16th August 2009, 20:56

So much for rendering unto Caesar... :rolleyes:

You're ignoring the context of what Jesus said.

Jesus on Taxes: Nothing is (Rightly) Caesar's!

The story of Jesus commanding us to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26) is commonly misrepresented as His commanding us to give to Caesar the denari which he asks for (i.e., to pay taxes to government) as--it is assumed--the denari are Caesar's, being that they have Caesar's image and name on them. But Jesus never said that this was so! What Jesus did say though was an ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection to avoid being immediately arrested, which would have interfered with Old Testament prophecy of His betrayal as well as His own previous predictions of betrayal.

When the Pharisees asked Him whether or not it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar they did so as a ruse in the hopes of being able to either have Him arrested as a rebel by the Roman authorities or to have Him discredited in the eyes of His followers. At this time in Israel's history it was an occupied territory of the Roman Empire, and taxes--which were being used to support this occupation--were much hated by the mass of the common Jews. Thus, this question was a clever Catch-22 posed to Jesus by the Pharisees: if Jesus answered that it is not lawful then the Pharisees would have Him put away, but if He answered that it is lawful then He would appear to be supporting the subjection of the Jewish people by a foreign power. Luke 20:20 makes the Pharisees' intent in asking this question quite clear:

So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, that they might seize on His words, in order to deliver Him to the power and the authority of the governor.

Thus, Jesus was not free to answer in just any casual manner. Of the Scripture prophecies which would have gone unfulfilled had He answered that it was fine to decline paying taxes and been arrested because of it are the betrayal by Judas (Psalm 41:9; Zech. 11:12,13), and His betrayer replaced (Psalm 109:8--see Acts 1:20); see also Acts 1:15-26 and Psalm 69:25. Here is a quote from Peter on this matter from Acts 1:16:

"Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus."

In Matt. 26:54,56 and Mark 14:49 Jesus testifies to this exact same thing after He was betrayed by Judas. As well, Jesus Himself twice foretold of His betrayal before He was asked the question on taxes--see Matt. 17:22; 20:18; Mark 9:31; 10:33; and Luke 9:44; 19:31. See also John 13:18-30, which testifies to the necessity of the fulfillment of Psalm 41:9, as Jesus here foretells of His betrayal by Judas.

In addition, it appears that the only reason Jesus paid the temple tax (and by supernatural means at that) as told in Matt. 17:24-27 was so as not to stir up trouble which would have interfered with the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture and Jesus's previous prediction of His betrayal as told in Matt. 17:22--neither of which would have been fulfilled had Jesus not paid the tax and been arrested because of it. Jesus Himself supports this view when He said of it "Nevertheless, lest we offend them . . ." (NKJV), which can also be translated "But we don't want to cause trouble" (CEV). He said this after in effect saying that those who pay customs and taxes are not free (v. 25,26)--yet one reason Jesus came was to call us to liberty (Luke 4:18; Gal. 4:7; 5:1,13,14; 1 Cor. 7:23; 2 Cor. 3:17; James 1:25; 2:12).

It should be remembered in all of this that it was Jesus Himself who told us "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." (Matt. 10:16). Jesus was being wise as a serpent as He never told us to pay taxes to Caesar, of which He could have done and still fulfilled Scripture and His previous predictions of betrayal. But the one thing He couldn't have told people was that it was okay not to pay taxes as He would have been arrested on the spot, and Scripture and His predictions of betrayal would have gone unfulfilled. Yet the most important thing in all this is what Jesus did not say. Jesus never said that all or any of the denari were Caesar's! Jesus simply said "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's." But this just begs the question, What is Caesar's? Simply because the denari have Caesar's name and image on them no more make them his than one carving their name into the back of a stolen TV set makes it theirs. Yet everything Caesar has has been taken by theft and extortion, therefore nothing is rightly his.

Tax Collectors are Sinners!

A further demonstration that Jesus considered the institution of taxation to be unjust is given in the below story:

Matthew 9:9-13: As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, "Follow Me." So he arose and followed Him. Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" When Jesus heard that, He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." (See also Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32.)

It's important to point out here that Jesus actually made a stronger case against the unrighteousness of tax collectors than the Pharisees originally had in questioning Jesus's disciples about it: the Pharisees actually separated the tax collectors from the sinners when they asked "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" Yet when Jesus heard this He answered the Pharisees by lumping the two groups together under the category of sinners--thus: "For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Yet since this is the story of Matthew the tax collector being called to repentance by Jesus we will do well to ask how it was that Matthew obtained repentance. The answer: By first giving up tax collecting! And from this beginning Matthew would thus go on to become one of Jesus's twelve disciples.
http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

But regardless of the Bible, which can obviously be construed in myriad different ways, early Christians were almost uniform in not having access to state power.

The early Christians lived in communes and shared everything in kind. They considered the state itself to be an evil. This can be shown from the New Testament:

Satan is in Control of Human Governments
http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html

That schism was the result of theological divisions over the nature of Christ's divinity (one of many in those days) and some more mundane politicking amongst the Patriarchs.

According to some Scholars, there, was no need for it, but politics played a big role. "It was only under constant pressure from the Emperor Marcian that the Fathers of Chalcedon agreed to draw a new formula of belief."
The different expressions of the one faith are due in large part to non-theological issues, such as "unfortunate circumstances, cultural differences and the difficulty of translating terms." It is debated whether the opposition to Chalcedon was out of a Christological issue or an attempt to assert Coptic and Syrian identity against the Byzantine.

Ecclesiastical politics had been very confused ever since the legislation, in the Council of 381, of a primacy of honor for Constantinople, the _New Rome," second only to that of the old Rome. It seems that both Rome and the Emperors used the Council of Chalcedon to carry out their respective plans: Rome for asserting its claim for primacy over the Church and the Emperors for trying to bring the entire Church in the East under the jurisdiction of the See of Constantinople.

No one can deny the disadvantages of the imperial interventions in the dispute. Most probably, Chalcedon's decisions and terms would have been different if the Emperor Marcian and his wife Pulcheria had not intervened. Since 450, they were gathering signatures for the Tome of Leo, the bishop of Rome. Many bishops of Chalcedon approved it only as a concession to the bishop whom the imperial authority supported.

The definitions of the Tome were composed in a way that it could be interpreted by different persons, each in his own way. It is known that Nestorius, who was still alive in 451, accepted the Tome of Leo, while the Alexandrines rejected it.
http://www.stmarystlouis.bizland.com/Monophysitism%20Reconsidered%20by%20Father%20Matth ias%20Wahba.htm

You should be willing to admit when someone knows more about a topic than you do. Further, it was not until after the death of Constantine that state and ecclesiastical power were merged. The Edict of Milan merely gave toleration of the faith within the empire.

Howard509

16th August 2009, 21:01

If you want to learn about the real Jesus, I recommend Jesus Before Christianity. According to Harvey Cox, it's the best short reconstruction of historical Jesus ever written.

Jesus Before Christianity was originally published in 1976, and is here re-published with a new preface by the author. What warrants this re-publication will be apparent when you pick this text up and begin reading. What could easily turn into simply a historical exercise becomes something much more: a critique of current forms of Christianity and a call for a return to something more real and closer to what Jesus himself actually lived and taught. Based firmly on actual history rather than hearsay or spiritual embellishment, this should be required reading for anyone who claims to be a Christian or anyone who wants to know the truth about the religion.

The book is arranged into several sections, according to theme. Part One lays the groundwork for the coming of Jesus, including an overview of John the Baptist's prophecies. Part Two covers what Jesus both practiced and preached. Part Three delves into some of the specifics of what Jesus talked about, such as the kingdom of God and how it relates to the idea of wealth. Finally, Part Four talks about Jesus' death. Closing out the book are a notes section, a bibliography, and an index.

Overall, the messages contained within this book are timely and important. The author asks us to look at what Jesus really said and what he could have meant by these words. To also judge ourselves and our doctrine by how well it maps with what Jesus did himself, such as dining with "sinners" and foreigners, not just those people who could advance our careers or who we think are proper like ourselves. Being reminded of how very revolutionary and dangerous Jesus' words were is equally important. He was onn par with modern heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela.
If only all of us, Christian and non-Christian alike, could have some understanding of what the author calls the "Abba experience"--a oneness with all of Creation and the Creator. Perhaps then we would not only learn that we must act upon our beliefs, but then actually do it. If you're at all interested in the history of the Holy Land or of Jesus, then this is the book for you. If you've been alienated from Christianity, then perhaps this book might help heal any lingering wounds; similarly, Christians should all read this book lest they be guilty of doing any alienating.
http://www.needcoffee.com/2003/12/07/jesus-before-christianity-book-review/

It's unfortunate when people think they don't have to learn anything about Jesus simply because of their perceptions of Christianity. The two are often at odds.

spiltteeth

17th August 2009, 00:50

Well, I'm an orthodox Christian, I don't believe He was flesh and blood but divine, but the Josephus doctrine is the closest thing to 'proof' -although it was written 100 yrs after Jesus lived so...Neither Tacitus, Pliny or Suetonius were pretending to give a first-person account of the life of Jesus. Pliny merely reports what the Christians believe. Tacitus and Suetonius fuddle the details, making it seem unlikely that they had - or cared to have - a reliable first-hand source.
to me there is no good historical proof that the Jesus in the Gospels lived.
the majority of non-religious historical scholars who have done serious extensive research into the matter have a general consensus that a historical Jesus probably did exist, but that he was not the same one depicted in the Gospels, which are mostly legend written down by anonymous authors to propagate a religious agenda, acording to thise secular historians.
There is no one who wrote who actually saw Jesus and can confirm him from 1st hand experience.
Having said that, I think there is enough evidence to either reasonably believe or disbelieve in the historical Jesus.

However, Christianity was VERY anti-sate, its not that Christians did not have access to state power, they most certainly did, but they actively refused to be a part of government, seeing the State as immoral and governing as unchristian, even joining the military but then rufuseing to fight.

Искра

17th August 2009, 01:01

However, Christianity was VERY anti-sate, its not that Christians did not have access to state power, they most certainly did, but they actively refused to be a part of government, seeing the State as immoral and governing as unchristian, even joining the military but then rufuseing to fight.
????? :blink:

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2009, 01:10

Howard:

Again, the majority of non-Christian scholars recognize the historicity of Jesus. I have no reason to regard a fringe position on an internet forum.

1) Can we see the results of the survey you conducted of 'non-christain scholars' world-wide?

2) You are here trying to convince this 'fringe', and we're not impressed so far.

Il Medico

17th August 2009, 01:16

What pagan holiday/traditions did Christianity take on as it's own? Christmas , All souls day, and I think gift giving had something to do with paganism as well.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2009, 01:19

Spiltteeth, here is what one sceptic has said of your 'evidence':

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts....

Take, for example, Eusebius who served as an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church [Remsberg]. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus came from Eusebius (none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus' Jesus). It comes to no surprise why many scholars think that Eusebius interpolated his writings. In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32)....

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay....

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

spiltteeth

17th August 2009, 02:31

Spiltteeth, here is what one sceptic has said of your 'evidence':

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

That jives with everything I said. Whats your point?

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2009, 02:59

^^^It does indeed, but only if you reject much of this:

Well, I'm an orthodox Christian, I don't believe He was flesh and blood but divine, but the Josephus doctrine is the closest thing to 'proof' -although it was written 100 yrs after Jesus lived so...Neither Tacitus, Pliny or Suetonius were pretending to give a first-person account of the life of Jesus. Pliny merely reports what the Christians believe. Tacitus and Suetonius fuddle the details, making it seem unlikely that they had - or cared to have - a reliable first-hand source.
to me there is no good historical proof that the Jesus in the Gospels lived.
the majority of non-religious historical scholars who have done serious extensive research into the matter have a general consensus that a historical Jesus probably did exist, but that he was not the same one depicted in the Gospels, which are mostly legend written down by anonymous authors to propagate a religious agenda, acording to thise secular historians.
There is no one who wrote who actually saw Jesus and can confirm him from 1st hand experience.
Having said that, I think there is enough evidence to either reasonably believe or disbelieve in the historical Jesus.

In other words you have no evidence that this fictional character ever lived.

spiltteeth

17th August 2009, 03:16

^^^It does indeed, but only if you reject much of this:

In other words you have no evidence that this fictional character ever lived.

Right. See this part?
"to me there is no good historical proof that the Jesus in the Gospels lived."

Although, since I know you are one for logic, your question is technically flawed since your first posit is your belief -that he is a fictional character- instead of a conclusion.
In research we call this 'prejudice' so already I know your analysis will not be objective, manipulative pollsters and politicians have same bent thought processes, but yea, as I said above I have never come across any historical evidence that I personally would consider as solid evidence for His existence.

Howard509

17th August 2009, 04:13

Well, I'm an orthodox Christian, I don't believe He was flesh and blood but divine

Orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus is a flesh and blood historical person. The scholarly community, Christian and non-Christian, aside from a small fringe, agrees that Jesus is a flesh and blood historical person.

If you want to understand how Jesus was a radical pacifist and socialist, I recommend reading the Politics of Jesus by John Yoder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard_Yoder

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2009, 04:44

Splithairs:

Right. See this part?
"to me there is no good historical proof that the Jesus in the Gospels lived."

Although, since I know you are one for logic, your question is technically flawed since your first posit is your belief -that he is a fictional character- instead of a conclusion.
In research we call this 'prejudice' so already I know your analysis will not be objective, manipulative pollsters and politicians have same bent thought processes, but yea, as I said above I have never come across any historical evidence that I personally would consider as solid evidence for His existence.

Yes I saw that, but the good sense you displayed here was ruined somewhat by this sort of guff:

Well, I'm an orthodox Christian, I don't believe He was flesh and blood but divine, but the Josephus doctrine is the closest thing to 'proof' -although it was written 100 yrs after Jesus lived so...

And he is indeed a fictional character since no sense can be made of this:

I don't believe He was flesh and blood but divine,

spiltteeth

17th August 2009, 04:50

Orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus is a flesh and blood historical person. The scholarly community, Christian and non-Christian, aside from a small fringe, agrees that Jesus is a flesh and blood historical person.

If you want to understand how Jesus was a radical pacifist and socialist, I recommend reading the Politics of Jesus by John Yoder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard_Yoder

Yea I dig Yoder, also check out Check out http://www.jesusradicals.com/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.jesusradicals.com/) They are a pretty large Anarchist group.
And Jacques Ellul Anarchy and Christianity

The Orthodox church teaches Jesus was a Divine actual flesh and blood historical person, which I also believe, however they did not reach this conclusion by way of historical evidence, which is what we are talking about.

Howard509

17th August 2009, 04:57

Yea I dig Yoder, also check out Check out http://www.jesusradicals.com/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.jesusradicals.com/) They are a pretty large Anarchist group.
And Jacques Ellul Anarchy and Christianity

The Orthodox church teaches Jesus was a Divine actual flesh and blood historical person, which I also believe, however they did not reach this conclusion by way of historical evidence, which is what we are talking about.

I recommend reading the Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware. You're totally wrong about Orthodox Christianity not appealing to the evidence.

spiltteeth

17th August 2009, 05:03

Splithairs:

Yes I saw that, but the good sense you displayed here was ruined somewhat by this sort of guff:

And he is indeed a fictional character since no sense can be made of this:

First, I know I was splitting hairs, I've just had too much coffee.

Well, I meant I believe He was flesh and blood AND divine.

There's plenty of current scientist's and major thinkers who also believe this, do you dismiss their scientific body of work then? And all their opinions?

What do you believe in? Some mid 1700's rationalism or scientism that dismisses Kant, quantum physics, cosmological science; cognitive + Jungian + Lacanian psychology, neurological studies set out in such books as 'flow' 'blink' 'blank slate' relegating rationality and reason to lower brain/thought functions, consciousness research, all postmodernist thought and....well you get my point (not that I believe in much of the psychology theory or postmodernism just examples)

Just saying every analysis has its proper framework, and their is one for historical analysis, which I, like many scientists, are able toeperate my personal beliefs from touching upon.

spiltteeth

17th August 2009, 05:06

I recommend reading the Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware. You're totally wrong about Orthodox Christianity not appealing to the evidence.

Thats a great book, I've read it, and yes they do appeal to evidence, however the Orthodox church came to the conclusion that Christ truely lived before the invention of Historical analysis, or even modern science.

Howard509

17th August 2009, 05:10

Thats a great book, I've read it, and yes they do appeal to evidence, however the Orthodox church came to the conclusion that Christ truely lived before the invention of Historical analysis, or even modern science.

If this is what the church teaches, and has taught from the very beginning, that Jesus is a flesh and blood historical man, you should believe it. You are always welcome to leave the church. Until then, you need to confess to your priest your heresy and he'll decide whether or not to deny you communion as a professed docetic heretic. If Jesus was not a flesh and blood historical person, someone in the first century would have disputed it. Most historians today, whether or not they are Christian, agree that Jesus historically existed.

spiltteeth

17th August 2009, 05:30

If this is what the church teaches, and has taught from the very beginning, that Jesus is a flesh and blood historical man, you should believe it. You are always welcome to leave the church. Until then, you need to confess to your priest your heresy and he'll decide whether or not to deny you communion as a professed docetic heretic. If Jesus was not a flesh and blood historical person, someone in the first century would have disputed it. Most historians today, whether or not they are Christian, agree that Jesus historically existed.

Howard, I think you need to read my posts closer.

(for the 3rd time) The Orthodox church taught the Christ was a real person from the very beginning but they DID NOT originally base this on historical evidence, which is (as i keep saying) what we are talking about.

I do believe it!
However I believe based on my personal relationship with Him and not because of the historical evidence which, although I know meets the standards of many secular historians to conclude that a non-gospel Jesus existed, I would not be convinced of such evidence based on my understandings of the frame work of historical analysis.

Look, maybe English wasn't you first language, or perhaps your a young person on Jr high, but when talking to you I keep repeating the same things and then you accuse me of things I did not say!

For example : Where did I say that I didn't believe Christ was a real person?
Where did I say the Orthodox church never references the historical evidence?

Weather it is a language barrier or an intellectual one or you are just fooling around and making fun of me I don't care. I don't mind repeating myself once or maybe twice or clarifying but you have constantly mis-understood what I've been saying and misrepresenting it.

You have really rubbed people the wrong way here because of your pride, ego, intolerance, and assumption everyone is more ignorant than you.

You know I'm an Orthodox Christian, that I've read the books you've suggested to me and you dare take the place of my holy confessor and presume to instruct me on my faith and spiritual obligations?

This is hubris at frankly an outrageous level.

For these reasons and more I will no longer be responding to you.

Howard509

17th August 2009, 05:47

However I believe based on my personal relationship with Him and not because of the historical evidence which, although I know meets the standards of many secular historians to conclude that a non-gospel Jesus existed, I would not be convinced of such evidence based on my understandings of the frame work of historical analysis.

The Orthodox Church, based on unanimous testimony of the early church, and the unanimous testimony of secular sources, teaches that the Jesus of the Gospels is a historical person. The Sermon on the Mount, for example, is a sermon that was really given by Jesus and, according to the church, and according to demonstrable evidence, the real Jesus gave this sermon.

spiltteeth

17th August 2009, 07:10

The Orthodox Church, based on unanimous testimony of the early church, and the unanimous testimony of secular sources , teaches that the Jesus of the Gospels is a historical person. The Sermon on the Mount, for example, is a sermon that was really given by Jesus and, according to the church, and according to demonstrable evidence, the real Jesus gave this sermon.

I can't resist. This is the last time I'll be responding.

I know Howard, but (As I keep saying) the Orthodox church did not originally base its belief, although they utilize it now, on "unanimous testimony of secular sources" since they believed that Christ was real BEFORE those sources even existed. They have only utilized those sources AFTER they existed you fucking moron.

And there is not a "unanimous secular opinion" on that.
Unanimous, Howard, is a grown up word that means every one agrees.
But several people have posted quotes from historians who do not agree.

I know, its only been posted 2 times, and you, Howard, need to be told what? Six times? OK here: 6 historians who disagree

1) Hayyim ben Yehoshua
2)Earl Doherty
3)Marshall Gauvin
4)Ernest Renan
5)M. M. Mangasarian
6)Charles Bradlaugh

Now - as I have said TWO times (2) already, so this will be the third time! Thats three howard, can you count to three? 1 2 3 ! Good! I think most secular historians agree that a non-gospel man named Jesus did exist.

Did you get that? Read it again Howard. READ IT. Ok.

See? I've said the same thing -AGAIN.

Have you heard this before?

I have said SIX - THATS SIX- 6!!!!! (go back and count - six times - 1 2 3 4 5 6 ) TIMES that I BELIEVE IN CHRIST AS a historical person.

I have said four times (thats four Howard, can you count to four? 1 2 3 4 !) four times that the church believes this too.

Either
1) You are a fucking moron
or
2) Your fucking with me.
or
3) You do not read posts but just randomly say whatever comes into your deformed mind.

Now post back saying that, contrary to what I say, Jesus really did exist! I fucking dare you.

spiltteeth

17th August 2009, 07:13

Oh, and don't bother apologizing for offending me, be like Gahandi and go complain about black people.

spiltteeth

17th August 2009, 07:46

Howard, let me apologize. I'm sorry I lost my cool. It was uncalled for and very unchristian. Please accept my apology.
There's no call for my angry post.
Again, sorry,
splitteeth

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2009, 11:15

Spiltteeth:

Well, I meant I believe He was flesh and blood AND divine.

Well, this sentence makes no sense, since it contains a meaningless word, 'divine'.

There's plenty of current scientist's and major thinkers who also believe this, do you dismiss their scientific body of work then? And all their opinions?

There's many who don't. Are you going to dismiss their...

But even if everyone believed this, that would just mean they were fools to accept a doctrine that contained so many meaningless words.

What do you believe in? Some mid 1700's rationalism or scientism that dismisses Kant, quantum physics, cosmological science; cognitive + Jungian + Lacanian psychology, neurological studies set out in such books as 'flow' 'blink' 'blank slate' relegating rationality and reason to lower brain/thought functions, consciousness research, all postmodernist thought and....well you get my point (not that I believe in much of the psychology theory or postmodernism just examples)

Why on earth do you think I believe any of this?

Just saying every analysis has its proper framework, and their is one for historical analysis, which I, like many scientists, are able toeperate my personal beliefs from touching upon.

Eh? :confused:

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2009, 11:17

Can a mod split this thread or move it to Religion?

Hit The North

17th August 2009, 12:14

Spiltteeth:
Well, this sentence makes no sense, since it contains a meaningless word, 'divine'.

Except the word divine isn't meaningless as it is defined in the dictionary and so we know what it means. In short: relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity.

Unless you're employing a hitherto unknown meaning of the word 'meaningless'.

Moved to Religion.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2009, 13:00

BTB:

Except the word divine isn't meaningless as it is defined in the dictionary and so we know what it means. In short: relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity.

It is 'defined' in terms of meaningless words -- so the result is the same.

Unless you're employing a hitherto unknown meaning of the word 'meaningless'.

A bit like you lot use 'contradiction' and 'negation', eh?

ComradeOm

17th August 2009, 13:51

You're ignoring the context of what Jesus saidAs I said, the Bible can be construed to mean anything at all by selectively quoting from it. Which is all you have done. That same was practised by the likes of the likes of Tertullian, who argued that Rome's existence was necessary to 'restrain' the Antichrist, or the later Augustine of Hippo... not to mention countless polemicists since

Which is the fundamental (ha ha) problem with a literal approach to scripture. You are taking nebulous and ever shifting views (which have been even further distorted through the centuries) and attempting to impose a uniform line on them. How anyone can insist that this is the case in the era of gnosticism, arianism, nestorianism, etc, is beyond me. Frankly all you've done (or rather the religious websites that you frequent) is mine the Bible for quotes that support your position. This is both worthless and stupid

When speaking of the early Church (ie, pre-Constantine) the Bible becomes almost worthless as a historical document. The most basic question being just what is the Bible? During the period we are discussing it was nothing more than a wildly varying collection of documents, the most important of which (the Gospels) having been written several decades after the death of Jesus. That's not even touching on the controversies and discussions that raged over which books were actually canon. What of Enoch, Tobit, or Marcion? Are these to be considered historical examples of early Church thought as well?

For example, one of your links approving quotes Revelations, conveniently ignoring that there was huge controversy within the early Church regarding this work. Debates as to its authenticity raged for centuries and as late as 360AD it was omitted from the list of canonical works compiled by the Council of Laodicea. It wasn't until the Third Council of Carthage (397AD) that it was definitely accepted as canon by the churches in the West, and the eastern churches did not follow suit until the Third Council of Constantinople in 680!

But hey, if you're so keen on quoting from the Bible then I suggest you look up Romans 13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:1-7) and see what the founder of the Church in Rome had to say about secular authority :rolleyes:

Further, it was not until after the death of Constantine that state and ecclesiastical power were merged. The Edict of Milan merely gave toleration of the faith within the empire.Constantine ruled for over twenty years following the Edict and throughout his reign (particularly so following the defeat of Licinius) the power of the Church increased steadily. The new city of Constantinople was, to quote Eusebius, deliberately conceived as "New Jerusalem... facing the famous Jerusalem of old", a major church building programme was undertaken, Ecumenical Councils were called, and Christians were systematically promoted to positions of prominence. By the time of his death Christianity, following decades of patronage, were firmly established as the de facto state religion and, drawing on the traditions of the Imperial Cult, was well on the way to being granted divine (or semi-divine) status. This was not a simple flick of a switch but a process that took decades as Christian thought evolved and adapted to new conditions

You should be willing to admit when someone knows more about a topic than you doI'll do that whenever you demonstrate this knowledge that you keep bragging about. And, in case its not clear from above, I do not consider mindlessly regurgitating from the Bible to be of any use whatsoever. Frankly your arguments, reliant on religious websites that offer naught but their own interpretations of scripture, demonstrate a complete lack of the understanding regarding the complex process that informed the early Church's positions and formulation of dogma

Invader Zim

17th August 2009, 14:40

1) Can we see the results of the survey you conducted of 'non-christain scholars' world-wide?

That would be an interesting survey. But in reality, how many 'scholars' investigating this question wouldn't be Christians? I would guess relatively few. The people who investigate this kind of question, naturally, tend to be adherents of the religion in question which is where they derive their interest.

The debate regarding the authorship and age of the gospels is an interesting topic, but one that is being woefully misrepresented in this topic. The author of the page Rosa linked to, for example, argued that there is a 'consensus of many' scholars that suggests that Mark was written around 70 A.D. That fails to point out that there is also a considerable degree of scholarship that places the age of Mark a full decade earlier, as early as 57 A.D. If we accept that 60 was a reasonable lif expectancy for a person in the Roman Empire, it seems that 70 A.D. is on the very end of that life. 57 A.D. on the other hand is well within that life expectancy.

Furthermore there were actually around 40 Gospels, only 4 of which made it into the New Testiment directly. However indirectly many did appear in the New testiment as the authors of the accepted Gospels plaigarised heavily from these gospels. For example we have the Gospel of Q, which was a series of sayings and proverbs, many of which purportedly came from Jesus and were compiled into a single work by his followers, according to some scholars, around 50 A.D. It was the source for considerable portions of Matthew and Luke.

Hit The North

17th August 2009, 14:57

BTB:
It is 'defined' in terms of meaningless words -- so the result is the same.

Again, we could turn to the dictionary and render a meaning for the word 'deity'.

If English isn't your first language, just say.

A bit like you lot use 'contradiction' and 'negation', eh?

Again, we all know what we mean. The learning difficulty remains with you.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2009, 15:13

BTB:

Again, we could turn to the dictionary and render a meaning for the word 'deity'.

Which would, once more, be 'defined' in meaningless terms. The entire collection of such terms forms a self-referential and meaningless set.

If English isn't your first language, just say.

Well we already know you prefer ruling-class gobbledygook to ordinary English.

Again, we all know what we mean.

Apparently not, since you lot can't explain these words, no matter how many times you have been asked.

The learning difficulty remains with you.

Yes, I find it very difficult learning what terms drawn from mystical hermetic thought mean.

As do you lot, too -- and for the reasons I outlined above.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2009, 15:16

Thanks for those comments Invader, but the Gospel of Q is a theoretical construct:

The Q document or Q (from the German Quelle, "source") is a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. It is a theoretical collection of Jesus' sayings, written in Greek. Although many scholars believe that "Q" was a real document, no actual document or fragment has been found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

trivas7

17th August 2009, 15:22

Does anyone have any resources on what traditions Christianity took from local pagan customs, and when, and related info?
Joseph Campbell's work comes to mind The truth is that aside from a core from Judaism all of Christianity comes from pagan sources (where else could it come from?).

Hit The North

17th August 2009, 15:47

BTB:
Which would, once more, be 'defined' in meaningless terms. The entire collection of such terms forms a self-referential and meaningless set.

Then it must be a mystery to you how billions of 'ordinary people', using 'ordinary language to communicate with each other, manage to find and share meaning using these 'meaningless' words.

The rest of your post is the usual drivel and doesn't require comment.

trivas7

17th August 2009, 15:54

The rest of your post is the usual drivel and doesn't require comment.
Wow. Theoretical construct, meet unmovable dogmatist :D.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2009, 16:58

BTB:

Then it must be a mystery to you how billions of 'ordinary people', using 'ordinary language to communicate with each other, manage to find and share meaning using these 'meaningless' words.

Where have I said that theological language is part of ordinary language?

And where have I said that it is impossible to say senseless things in ordinary language?

[In fact, you have had this point explained to you before, so your memory is not getting any better.]

The rest of your post is the usual drivel and doesn't require comment.

Still superior to your sub-standard drivel, though.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2009, 16:58

Trivas:

Theoretical construct, meet unmovable dogmatist

Says brainless know-nothing.

Invader Zim

17th August 2009, 19:23

Thanks for those comments Invader, but the Gospel of Q is a theoretical construct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

And? We are dealing with 2,000 year old sources. Naturally not all sources survive and we are left with only references to them, this is hardly an uncommon problem. That doesn't mean that you cannot produce considerable evidence to suggest that they once existed from sources you do have. Think of it this way, both Luke and Matthew we know drew heavily from two different sources because in key places they barely deviate from each other. One of these documents is Mark, and the other is this document we have yet to find. Sure there are some experts who argue against 'Q' but most do not. It is the most logical explaination.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2009, 22:12

Invader:

And? We are dealing with 2,000 year old sources. Naturally not all sources survive and we are left with only references to them, this is hardly an uncommon problem. That doesn't mean that you cannot produce considerable evidence to suggest that they once existed from sources you do have. Think of it this way, both Luke and Matthew we know drew heavily from two different sources because in key places they barely deviate from each other. One of these documents is Mark, and the other is this document we have yet to find. Sure there are some experts who argue against 'Q' but most do not. It is the most logical explaination.

And yet, we have no physical evidence that this 'source' exists. Now, I am not denying it did, but I was just concerned that you were putting it on the same level of reliability as sources we have that do exist in hard copy.

And there are other explanations for the similarities you mention.

Hit The North

17th August 2009, 22:43

BTB:
Where have I said that theological language is part of ordinary language?

I never claimed you did.

But ordinary people use this language and it has meaning for them. Therefore, the words are not meaningless, except in terms of some specialist philosophical mode of reasoning you are imposing on them.

spiltteeth

17th August 2009, 23:48

Rosa, the word 'divine' generates meaning based on the 2 principles of sociolinguistics (metaphor and analogy) since it operates by a specific structual order within a sentence and negative referential value aplies.

Turning this argument into a -metaphysical ? - discussion of how meaning is generated is possibly the silliest thing I;ve seen here.

Please define every word you use (not according to the dictionary which you do not accept) but within the framework that you yourself use when evaluating the meaning-validity of words you use to answer me.

If you cannot then everything you say, by your own framework, is meaningless and I can therefore not respond.

Also, you and Howard deserve each other.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th August 2009, 00:44

BTB:

I never claimed you did.

This certainly implies it:

Then it must be a mystery to you how billions of 'ordinary people', using 'ordinary language to communicate with each other, manage to find and share meaning using these 'meaningless' words.

if these 'meaningless words' are all taken from theology.

But ordinary people use this language and it has meaning for them. Therefore, the words are not meaningless, except in terms of some specialist philosophical mode of reasoning you are imposing on them.

You are running together several distinct meanings of 'meaning':

(1) Personal Significance: as in "His Teddy Bear means a lot to him."

(2) Evaluative import: as in "May Day means different things to different classes."

(3) Point or purpose: as in "Life has no meaning."

(4) Linguistic meaning: as in "'Vixen' means 'female fox'", "'Chien' means 'dog'", or "Recidivist" means someone who has resumed their criminal career.

(5) Aim or intention: as in "They mean to win this strike."

(6) Implication: as in "Winning this dispute means that management won't try another wage cut again in a hurry."

(7) Indicate, point to, or presage: as in "Those clouds mean rain", or "Those spots mean you have measles."

(8) Reference: as in "I meant him over there", or "'The current president of the USA' means somebody different at least once every eight years."

(9) Artistic or literary import: as in "The meaning of this novel is to examine political integrity."

(10) An indication of conversational focus: as in "I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% rise in the first place?"

(11) An expression of sincerity or determination: as in "I mean it, I really do want to go on the march!", or "The demonstrators really mean to stop this war."

(12) The content of a message, or the import of a sign: as in "It means the strike starts on Monday", or "It means you have to queue here."

(13) Interpretation: as in "You will need to read the author's novels if you want to give a new meaning to her latest play", or "That gesture means those pickets think you are a scab."

(14) Import or significance: as in "Part of the meaning of this play is to change our view of drama", or "The real meaning of the agreement is that the bosses have at last learnt their lesson."

(15) Speakers' meaning: as in "When you trod on her foot and she said 'Well done!' she in fact meant the exact opposite."

(16) Communicative meaning: as in "You get my meaning", or "My last letter should tell you what I meant", or "We have just broken their secret code; the last message meant this..."

(17) Explanation: as in "When the comrade said the strike isn't over what she meant was that we can still win!"

This is taken from here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

You mean (as in 'intend') perhaps (1), or, maybe (2), whereas I mean (as in 'intend') (4) and sometimes (6).

I do not deny theological language has a meaning in sense (1) or (2), but I deny it has a meaning in sense (4), or (6).

In the end, there is no way of explaining what theological language means without using yet more of such language, which in turn has no way of being explained without..., and so on.

As I said, the entire collection is a self-referential set of meaningless terms.

So, I challenge you, for example, to tell us what the word 'God' means without using yet more empty terms.

Try it -- and I'll show you what I mean (as in 'intend').

except in terms of some specialist philosophical mode of reasoning you are imposing on them

You've no room to talk, you do this with words like 'contradiction' and 'negation'.

In contrast, my use of 'meaning' I have explained in non-philosophical terms.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th August 2009, 00:50

spilteeth:

Rosa, the word 'divine' generates meaning based on the 2 principles of sociolinguistics (metaphor and analogy) since it operates by a specific structual order within a sentence and negative referential value aplies.

I deny there is any way of making sense of these analogies and/or metaphors.

I defy you to show differently.

Turning this argument into a -metaphysical ? - discussion of how meaning is generated is possibly the silliest thing I;ve seen here.

Please define every word you use (not according to the dictionary which you do not accept) but within the framework that you yourself use when evaluating the meaning-validity of words you use to answer me.

If you cannot then everything you say, by your own framework, is meaningless and I can therefore not respond.

I did not mention definition here (BTB mentioned the dictionary definition, not me), so why you brought it up to use against me is unclear.

Also, you and Howard deserve each other.

Now, I understand why you are becoming offensive -- you find you cannot explain what 'divine' is, so you have to distract attention from that fact by mounting a personal attack.

But, it doesn't change anything; 'divine' is as meainingless as 'god'.

Unless, of course, you can show different...

spiltteeth

18th August 2009, 04:12

spilteeth:

I deny there is any way of making sense of these analogies and/or metaphors.

I defy you to show differently.

I did not mention definition here (BTB mentioned the dictionary definition, not me), so why you brought it up to use against me is unclear.

Now, I understand why you are becoming offensive -- you find you cannot explain what 'divine' is, so you have to distract attention from that fact by mounting a personal attack.

But, it doesn't change anything; 'divine' is as meaningless as 'god'.

Unless, of course, you can show different...

First I wasn't saying Divine is a metaphor or analogy, those are technical terms in the way words function to generate meaning.
(I will explain below)

Please read what I wrote more carefully.

I explained how the word 'Divine' does indeed generate meaning, according to the current theory of sociolinguistics.

You say the word divine is meaningless, therefore you have a different framework of understanding how meaning is generated.

I feel like I'm talking to Howard but I repeat : what is this framework that leads you to reject the dictionary definition?

Bob gave you the meaning of Divine according to the dictionary and you rejected it.

You said the words used in the dictionary to define 'divine' were meaningless, I don't know which ones you specifically meant.

According to you, you are using the word 'meaning' as

1) Linguistic meaning: as in "'Vixen' means 'female fox'", "'Chien' means 'dog'", or "Recidivist" means someone who has resumed their criminal career.

And

2) Implication: as in "Winning this dispute means that management won't try another wage cut again in a hurry."

You want me to explain how 'Divine' has meaning. OK

BUT FIRST, I must point out that you posit (correctly) :

"In the end, there is no way of explaining what theological language means without using yet more of such language, which in turn has no way of being explained without..., and so on.

As I said, the entire collection is a self-referential set of meaningless terms.

So, I challenge you, for example, to tell us what the word 'God' means without using yet more empty terms.

Try it -- and I'll show you what I mean (as in 'intend')."

This is true for ALL language and has been accepted as such since structuralism has been outdated.

But I will explain.

First, to clarify by what I meant by analogy and metaphor.

Metaphor = an act of substitution of one term for another and thus corresponded to the paradigmatic axis, or the axis of selection. All the world's a stage
Metonymy = 'crown' for the position of the monarch. One term refers to another because it is associated or adjacent to it, and therefore it corresponds to the syntagmatic axis, or the axis of combination.
(Crown is not a substitute for the monarch, since crown and monarch signify 2 diff. things, but it’s associated with the monarch, and when combines with other words in a context, will be understood to signify Monarch.)
Or Lend me your ear

Metaphor = Condensation, which designates the process whereby two or more signs or images in a dream are combined to form a composite image that is then invested with the meaning of both its constitutive elements.

Metonymy = Displacement describes the process through which meaning is transferred from one sign to another.

When we use language we do so against a background of vocabulary, syntax, grammar and conventions; we are not conscious of all those elements when we speak or write but they are there and they determine what we can and cannot say. If we transgress the rules, our speech becomes meaningless.

- the relationship between a word - its concept or idea - and the thing to which it refers, the referent.

However, that words cannot refer to specific phenomena in the material world : if I speak the word 'tree' or 'chair' we will all immediately conjure up conceptions of trees or chairs, but these images do not actually refer to a specific tree or chair in the material world. Instead, we are all thinking about different trees and chairs. What the word 'tree' refers to is not a 'thing' - a real tree - but a concept of a tree.

The word does not refer to a specific referent at all, but only to a concept

Saussure's linguistic sign consists of two elements: the sound pattern or written word, which is called the signifier, and the concept, which is known as the signified.

According to Saussure, meaning does not reside in individual signs but in the relationship between signs in the language system itself. Language creates a differential system whereby any given sign acquires its meaning by virtue of its difference from other signs.

We will leave Paris tomorrow :

'We' could be substituted by 'I', 'you', 'he' or 'she', or 'tomorrow' could be substituted by 'today'. The sentence will still make sense if we substitute these terms but it will have a very different meaning. These alternatives are absent from the immediate situation of language use but are present as a background against which we understand specific terms. (Paradigmatic axis, or the axis of selection)

Second, the meaning of a sentence arises from a specific combination of terms rather than its individual elements in isolation, the syntagmatic axis

Dictionary: If we want to find out what a word means, what do we do? We look it up in a dictionary. But a dictionary is simply a compendium of signs; therefore, the meaning of a specific sign is simply another sign and if we were to look up the meaning of this second sign we would find another and another and so on and so forth. This process will never come to a stop at an actual referent in the real world, but results in an endless process of 'signification'.

Saussure's theory of language:

• Language does not reflect reality but rather one produces one's experience within the constraints of the given language system and that language system, to some extent, conditions the nature of one's experience.

• Language is not an absolute and fixed system within which a singular meaning can be located, but it is rather a set of differential relations.

So, in that sense, no word, theological or not, can be defined outside of context/individually.

The the reality is upsides down S/s = not s/S =

The capitalized Signifier takes precedence over the signified and the 'bar' between the two elements symbolizes, not the inseparability of the sign but its fundamental division. The bar functions as a barrier to meaning.
If we try to define the meaning of a specific word or concept, for example, we can only do so through other words; we are caught in a continual process of producing signs. This is true not just for theological words.

Signification is always a process - a chain. None of its elements actually 'consist' of the meaning or the signified but rather each signifier 'insists' on a meaning, as it presses forward to the next signifier. Meaning is not fixed, there is an incessant sliding of the signified under the signifier.
There are ‘anchoring points' that allows for moments of stable signification.

The notion of structure is comprised of three key ideas: the idea of wholeness, the idea of transformation, and the idea of self regulation.

The structure is preserved and enriched by the interplay of its transformation laws, which never yield results external to the system nor employ elements that are external to it.

The totality is the result of both the interdependence of the elements composing the structures and the fact that the bringing together of all the elements is necessarily different from their sum.
The notion of transformation presupposes laws of combination defining operations within a given structure in such a way that they, as it were, give structure to an already structured reality.
Finally, self-regulation, the essential characteristic of the structure, means that the structure is self preservative. For example, if two elements of a structure are brought into connection by the law of combination, the third element resulting from this operation will also be structured. In other words, one may speak of the stability of the system.

So yes, 'divine' and 'god' just like 'tomato' or 'chair' can never have a fixed absolute meaning.
(ie None of its elements actually 'consist' of the meaning or the signified but rather each signifier 'insists' on a meaning, as it presses forward to the next signifier. Meaning is not fixed, there is an incessant sliding of the signified under the signifier.
There are ‘anchoring points' that allows for moments of stable signification.)

What sane people who don't talk/think like Judy Butler or you mean is the anchoring point of 'Divine', which the dictionary definition is perfectly capable of suppling.

Howard509

18th August 2009, 07:10

I've read every article on Jesusneverexisted.com, and Kenneth Humphreys is very weak in presenting his case for the non-existence of Jesus in public debates. I honestly believe that some people, whether justified or not, have such a deep hatred for Christianity that Jesus the man couldn't possibly have ever existed.

The three books I recommend on understanding the real Jesus are Jesus Before Christianity by Albert Nolan, The Politics of Jesus by John Yoder and The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy. When you come to recognize Jesus as a peaceful dissident who gave up his life for his ideals, you might begin to love him, whether or not you call him your god.

Invader Zim

18th August 2009, 09:49

Invader:

And yet, we have no physical evidence that this 'source' exists. Now, I am not denying it did, but I was just concerned that you were putting it on the same level of reliability as sources we have that do exist in hard copy.

And there are other explanations for the similarities you mention.

And yet, we have no physical evidence that this 'source' exists.Again, and? Like i said we are dealing with 2,000 year old sources. Unsupprisingly 2,000 year old sources often do not survive, especially when they are the product of a religious cult that actually burned a large number of its own writings.

The fact is it would be particularly astonishing if the authors of Luke and Matthew managed to come up with the exact same wording in number of passages independently. Secondly we have references to such a document having existed. The fact is that while there maybe some bible scholars who doubt the 'Q hypothesis' they haven't made a believable counter-hypothesis in my opinion. For example, one of the prominant thesis' is that Matthew was, counter to all the evidence, the first Gospel and the similarities in Luke and Mark come from that.

Now, I am not denying it did, but I was just concerned that you were putting it on the same level of reliability as sources we have that do exist in hard copy.

In what context? If such a document did indeed exist, logically it must predate the existing Gospels, because thery borrowed from it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th August 2009, 10:17

Invader:

Again, and?

Well, a non-extant, assumed source cannot carry the same authoriity as an extant source.

Unsupprisingly 2,000 year old sources often do not survive, especially when they are the product of a religious cult that actually burned a large number of its own writings.

But, this might never have existed.

The fact is it would be particularly astonishing if the authors of Luke and Matthew managed to come up with the exact same wording in number of passages independently. Secondly we have references to such a document having existed. The fact is that while there maybe some bible scholars who doubt the 'Q hypothesis' they haven't made a believable counter-hypothesis in my opinion. For example, one of the prominant thesis' is that Matthew was, counter to all the evidence, the first Gospel and the similarities in Luke and Mark come from that.

I am sorry, what 'references'?

And, conservative Christians explain the similarities you mention in other ways.

Set against the non-extant nature of 'Q', this is no more nor no less plausible.

Of course, if 'Q' is ever discovered, all well and good.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th August 2009, 10:20

Howard:

I've read every article on Jesusneverexisted.com, and Kenneth Humphreys is very weak in presenting his case for the non-existence of Jesus in public debates. I honestly believe that some people, whether justified or not, have such a deep hatred for Christianity that Jesus the man couldn't possibly have ever existed.

Sure we hate Christianity (in my case, I used to be one), but if Jesus never lived, and there is no hard evidence he did, we can hardly hate him.

And thanks for the books, but I'd rather watch my toenails grow.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th August 2009, 11:19

Spilteeth:

Thanks for all that, but much of it is wasted effort.

I explained how the word 'Divine' does indeed generate meaning, according to the current theory of sociolinguistics.

Which 'current theory' for there are many?

And what sense of 'meaning' do you mean (i.e., 'intend'), for there are many; this is what I posted in reply to BTB:

(1) Personal Significance: as in "His Teddy Bear means a lot to him."

(2) Evaluative import: as in "May Day means different things to different classes."

(3) Point or purpose: as in "Life has no meaning."

(4) Linguistic meaning: as in "'Vixen' means 'female fox'", "'Chien' means 'dog'", or "Recidivist" means someone who has resumed their criminal career.

(5) Aim or intention: as in "They mean to win this strike."

(6) Implication: as in "Winning this dispute means that management won't try another wage cut again in a hurry."

(7) Indicate, point to, or presage: as in "Those clouds mean rain", or "Those spots mean you have measles."

(8) Reference: as in "I meant him over there", or "'The current president of the USA' means somebody different at least once every eight years."

(9) Artistic or literary import: as in "The meaning of this novel is to examine political integrity."

(10) An indication of conversational focus: as in "I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% rise in the first place?"

(11) An expression of sincerity or determination: as in "I mean it, I really do want to go on the march!", or "The demonstrators really mean to stop this war."

(12) The content of a message, or the import of a sign: as in "It means the strike starts on Monday", or "It means you have to queue here."

(13) Interpretation: as in "You will need to read the author's novels if you want to give a new meaning to her latest play", or "That gesture means those pickets think you are a scab."

(14) Import or significance: as in "Part of the meaning of this play is to change our view of drama", or "The real meaning of the agreement is that the bosses have at last learnt their lesson."

(15) Speakers' meaning: as in "When you trod on her foot and she said 'Well done!' she in fact meant the exact opposite."

(16) Communicative meaning: as in "You get my meaning", or "My last letter should tell you what I meant", or "We have just broken their secret code; the last message meant this..."

(17) Explanation: as in "When the comrade said the strike isn't over what she meant was that we can still win!"

Of course, some of the above meanings of 'meaning' overlap.

This is taken from here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

I suspect you mean (as in 'intend') perhaps (1), or, maybe (2), whereas I mean (as in 'intend') (4) and sometimes (6) or (8).

I do not doubt that theological words 'mean' (as in (1) or (2)) something for you, and others, what I doubt is that they 'mean' anything in sense (4), (6) or (8).

And that is why much of what you have posted is wasted effort.

Now, you asked me to read what you posted carefully, but the same could be said to you:

what is this framework that leads you to reject the dictionary definition? Bob gave you the meaning of Divine according to the dictionary and you rejected it.

Where have I rejected it?

1) I did not bring up the subject of definition, that was BTB.

2) All I said in reply was that dictionaries define meaningless theological words in terms of other meaningless theological terms, and that the entire collection of such words forms a self-referential set of meaningless terms.

So, I am not rejecting these definitions, just pointing out they are empty definitions. You and BTB are quite at liberty to accept these empty definitions, that is up to you. I neither accept nor reject them, since they are not definitions, but meaningless strings of words.

If you can give me a definition of 'god', for example, that does not contain meaningless words (in the senses I indicated), I might be inclined to accept it, but I have been asking this question of 'god'-botherers for longer than most RevLefters have been alive -- no luck so far.

Moreover, I have read the attempts to tell us what 'god' is in the Bible, the works of Augustine, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, Bultmann..., no luck there either.

Perhaps you can do what no one else in the entire history of Christianity has been able to do -- who knows? Maybe you are the next Karl Barth...

This is true for ALL language and has been accepted as such since structuralism has been outdated.

I am sorry, but there are no such universally accepted truths of the sort you mention in Linguistics; you are just trying to bully acceptance out of me, thinking I do not know enough Linguistics.

Well I do, and you aren't (succeeding in bullying me).

Metaphor = an act of substitution of one term for another and thus corresponded to the paradigmatic axis, or the axis of selection. All the world's a stage

Metaphor is far, far more complex than this one-liner suggests -- can I recommend you read a book by my PhD supervisor on this:

Roger White, The Structure of Metaphor (Blackwell, 1996).

I won't comment on much else that you have posted since it does not seem to be relevant to what I said; however I will comment on the following:

the relationship between a word - its concept or idea - and the thing to which it refers, the referent.

This treats all words as if they were names or singular designating expressions; but this is incorrect.

What do the following refer to: if, but, and, nothing, inadvertently, plausible, refer, name...?

Check these out:

http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/logwitt3.html

http://spot.colorado.edu/~rhanna/wittgenstein_on_the_augustinian_theory_aug08.htm

Recall, I am not committed to accepting everything these two say; I am only posting these links to counter your (implied) contention that all words refer to something.

But, even if you were right, we still have no idea what the word 'god' refers to, since, according to the Bible (see below), we can form no concept of 'god' -- and if the word 'god' works as a name, we have, as yet, no idea what it means -- in the sense of what it refers to, if anything.

In that case, until someone can reveal to us the exact nature of 'god', or even a rough guide to what it is (without using yet more meaningless terms), 'god' remains a meaningless term.

However, that words cannot refer to specific phenomena in the material world : if I speak the word 'tree' or 'chair' we will all immediately conjure up conceptions of trees or chairs, but these images do not actually refer to a specific tree or chair in the material world. Instead, we are all thinking about different trees and chairs. What the word 'tree' refers to is not a 'thing' - a real tree - but a concept of a tree.

The word does not refer to a specific referent at all, but only to a concept

So, when you say, for example, "That chair over there is up for sale" you are not referring to an actual chair that is up for sale, but a concept; is that it?

In that case, what do you propose to take home, if you buy that chair? A concept?

I think not.

Not even Saussure was that dopey.

I'm afraid you are getting rather desperate in your attempt to defend the indefensible.

But, anyway, even if you were right, until you tell us what the concept 'god' is, the word 'god' is still meaningless. And if 'god' is just a concept, then he does not exist outside the minds of believers. I think us atheists can live with that.

And even if you were to say "The concept of god is this and that...", that will not help, since such a sentence would be meaningless itself, since it contains an empty term, namely, 'god'.

This is the permanent bind you lot are in: since not even you know what/who/where... 'god' is, you are forced to use this empty term.

So, any attempt to explain what it means must fall at the first hurdle, since not even you lot knows what it means (in the sense of 'mean' I indicated earlier).

You have no idea what 'entity' you are referring to, or even if 'god' is an entity.

And this is a unique bind that relates only to theological language, since, even believers admit they have no precise idea what 'god' is -- and not even a vague idea!

This is what the Bible says:

To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?

Isaiah 40:18.

The implication is clear, there is nothing to which we can compare 'him'.

So us non-believers stand no chance.

And that means that the phrase 'the concept of god' is meaningless too, since it contains an empty term, namely 'god'.

Alas, short of blaspheming (that is claiming to know the precise (or even the vague) nature of 'god'), there is no way out for you 'god'-botherers.

And, if you were to tell me: "The nature of god is this or that...", you are still in a bind, since, that sentence contains an empty word, namely 'god'.

We still haven't a clue what you are referring to -- and neither have you!

You might as well be using the word 'schmod' for all the good it does.

And, thanks for all the Saussure stuff, but I reject his confused work on this, since he too thought all words were names.

Anyway, you quote him as if he were the first and last word on this; his theory is only accepted by certain theorists, and by no means the majority.

So, as I said, much of your post was wasted effort.

So, in that sense, no word, theological or not, can be defined outside of context/individually.

Who said they could? Recall I said the entire collection of theological words forms a self-referential set of meaningless terms. That is not so with ordinary words.

Anyway, we still have no idea, Saussure or not, what or who you are referring to when you use the word 'god' -- and neither have you.

So yes, 'divine' and 'god' just like 'tomato' or 'chair' can never have a fixed absolute meaning.

Whether or not ordinary words have a fixed or 'absolute' meaning, at least they have a meaning (be it temporary or contextual -- indeed, many even have a reference). Theological words in comparison have none at all (in the senses I indicated), and refer to nothing at all (that you can specify without the use of other empty phrases).

In the case of 'god', and 'divine', and even if Saussure were right (which I deny), these 'signifiers' cannot work as signifiers, since what they 'signify' ('god', or 'the divine', or the related concepts) can only be accessed by us through the use of language, and just as soon as you do that, you are forced to use empty terms once more.

So, even if Saussure were 100% right in what he says, his ideas would still be of no use to you.

We still do not know what 'god' refers to.

spiltteeth

18th August 2009, 21:41

Spilteeth:

Thanks for all that, but much of it is wasted effort.

Which 'current theory' for there are many?

And what sense of 'meaning' do you mean (i.e., 'intend'), for there are many; this is what I posted in reply to BTB:

This is taken from here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

I suspect you mean (as in 'intend') perhaps (1), or, maybe (2), whereas I mean (as in 'intend') (4) and sometimes (6) or (8).

I do not doubt that theological words 'mean' (as in (1) or (2)) something for you, and others, what I doubt is that they 'mean' anything in sense (4), (6) or (8).

And that is why much of what you have posted is wasted effort.

Now, you asked me to read what you posted carefully, but the same could be said to you:

Where have I rejected it?

1) I did not bring up the subject of definition, that was BTB.

2) All I said in reply was that dictionaries define meaningless theological words in terms of other meaningless theological terms, and that the entire collection of such words forms a self-referential set of meaningless terms.

So, I am not rejecting these definitions, just pointing out they are empty definitions. You and BTB are quite at liberty to accept these empty definitions, that is up to you. I neither accept nor reject them, since they are not definitions, but meaningless strings of words.

If you can give me a definition of 'god', for example, that does not contain meaningless words (in the senses I indicated), I might be inclined to accept it, but I have been asking this question of 'god'-botherers for longer than most RevLefters have been alive -- no luck so far.

Moreover, I have read the attempts to tell us what 'god' is in the Bible, the works of Augustine, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, Bultmann..., no luck there either.

Perhaps you can do what no one else in the entire history of Christianity has been able to do -- who knows? Maybe you are the next Karl Barth...

I am sorry, but there are no such universally accepted truths of the sort you mention in Linguistics; you are just trying to bully acceptance out of me, thinking I do not know enough Linguistics.

Well I do, and you aren't (succeeding in bullying me).

Metaphor is far, far more complex than this one-liner suggests -- can I recommend you read a book by my PhD supervisor on this:

Roger White, The Structure of Metaphor (Blackwell, 1996).

I won't comment on much else that you have posted since it does not seem to be relevant to what I said; however I will comment on the following:

This treats all words as if they were names or singular designating expressions; but this is incorrect.

What do the following refer to: if, but, and, nothing, inadvertently, plausible, refer, name...?

Check these out:

http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/logwitt3.html

http://spot.colorado.edu/~rhanna/wittgenstein_on_the_augustinian_theory_aug08.htm

Recall, I am not committed to accepting everything these two say; I am only posting these links to counter your (implied) contention that all words refer to something.

But, even if you were right, we still have no idea what the word 'god' refers to, since, according to the Bible (see below), we can form no concept of 'god' -- and if the word 'god' works as a name, we have, as yet, no idea what it means -- in the sense of what it refers to, if anything.

In that case, until someone can reveal to us the exact nature of 'god', or even a rough guide to what it is (without using yet more meaningless terms), 'god' remains a meaningless term.

So, when you say, for example, "That chair over there is up for sale" you are not referring to an actual chair that is up for sale, but a concept; is that it?

In that case, what do you propose to take home, if you buy that chair? A concept?

I think not.

Not even Saussure was that dopey.

I'm afraid you are getting rather desperate in your attempt to defend the indefensible.

But, anyway, even if you were right, until you tell us what the concept 'god' is, the word 'god' is still meaningless. And if 'god' is just a concept, then he does not exist outside the minds of believers. I think us atheists can live with that.

And even if you were to say "The concept of god is this and that...", that will not help, since such a sentence would be meaningless itself, since it contains an empty term, namely, 'god'.

This is the permanent bind you lot are in: since not even you know what/who/where... 'god' is, you are forced to use this empty term.

So, any attempt to explain what it means must fall at the first hurdle, since not even you lot knows what it means (in the sense of 'mean' I indicated earlier).

You have no idea what 'entity' you are referring to, or even if 'god' is an entity.

And this is a unique bind that relates only to theological language, since, even believers admit they have no precise idea what 'god' is -- and not even a vague idea!

This is what the Bible says:

Isaiah 40:18.

The implication is clear, there is nothing to which we can compare 'him'.

So us non-believers stand no chance.

And that means that the phrase 'the concept of god' is meaningless too, since it contains an empty term, namely 'god'.

Alas, short of blaspheming (that is claiming to know the precise (or even the vague) nature of 'god'), there is no way out for you 'god'-botherers.

And, if you were to tell me: "The nature of god is this or that...", you are still in a bind, since, that sentence contains an empty word, namely 'god'.

We still haven't a clue what you are referring to -- and neither have you!

You might as well be using the word 'schmod' for all the good it does.

And, thanks for all the Saussure stuff, but I reject his confused work on this, since he too thought all words were names.

Anyway, you quote him as if he were the first and last word on this; his theory is only accepted by certain theorists, and by no means the majority.

So, as I said, much of your post was wasted effort.

Who said they could? Recall I said the entire collection of theological words forms a self-referential set of meaningless terms. That is not so with ordinary words.

Anyway, we still have no idea, Saussure or not, what or who you are referring to when you use the word 'god' -- and neither have you.

Whether or not ordinary words have a fixed or 'absolute' meaning, at least they have a meaning (be it temporary or contextual -- indeed, many even have a reference). Theological words in comparison have none at all (in the senses I indicated), and refer to nothing at all (that you can specify without the use of other empty phrases).

In the case of 'god', and 'divine', and even if Saussure were right (which I deny), these 'signifiers' cannot work as signifiers, since what they 'signify' ('god', or 'the divine', or the related concepts) can only be accessed by us through the use of language, and just as soon as you do that, you are forced to use empty terms once more.

So, even if Saussure were 100% right in what he says, his ideas would still be of no use to you.

We still do not know what 'god' refers to.

Wow. I guess that really was a wasted effort. I was trying to say the opposite.
I was saying Saussure got it upside down and was wrong, not right. I was describing the framework I was using.

I'll ask for the 3rd time - what framework you using?
I went to all the trouble of describing the linguistic theory beginning with Saussure and showing how the theory has evolved to try and say the framework IS INADEQUATE FOR ATTACHING MEANING TO GOD.

OK, so you don't "reject" the dic. def of divine, you just think its meaningless. OK.

"And what sense of 'meaning' do you mean (i.e., 'intend'), for there are many; this is what I posted in reply to BTB"

UMMMMMM I know - I quoted you and told you I was answering the 2 specific ways your using the word meaning......What the heck? You didn't even read my post?

"Recall, I am not committed to accepting everything these two say; I am only posting these links to counter your (implied) contention that all words refer to something"

No, I think I explained why this in fact CAN'T be true.

In fact, I disagree with 2 other things you said, but lets let it go.

You're thinking, in a way I tried to liken to Saussure's, is upside down.

You start with the idea of 'god doesn't exist' instead of being objective.

Your question is 'meaningless' since it fails to frame itself in a way that produces meaning - ie apprehend the subject 'god'

Lets test out the two hypothesis.

It is true (as you say) that divine is meaningless and the words used to describe them only if god does not exists, so then lets posit the opposite : god does exist. Now those words are not self-referential and they are meaningful.

So then we need a def of god, the Pauline one, as you mentioned is abstract - "beyond definition, god is love etc"

Since god cannot be defined the word god and divine is, as you say, by definition meaningless.

My entire post was to simply say that the framework your using cannot judge the meaning of god or divine, it is the wrong tool.
Yes, you cannot actually talk about god and be senscical, within your framework.
You must frame it in a different way if you would like to understand how god generates meaning.

So, is god and divine 'meaningfull' in the 2 ways you are using meaning.

NO.

Again, you are correct, god and divine are meaningless terms in that context.
I thought that was pretty well implied.

(although i thought i explained how the average Joe can talk about 'god' and be understood but lets forget that)

Yet they have meaning in other ways, and just as a virologist does not use the same def of life as a biologist, If your curious, and let me frame the question in a way that can generate meaning, I'll tell you the framework I use. I'll briefly summarize.

Usually I use Badiou's frame since he's a hardcore atheist and all his posits are grounded in mathematical theory.

In Badiou’s ontology truth emerges from an “event”; and this event comes from the “empty set”, or void. These “truth-events” can be produced within four possible fields, or “generic procedures”. For Badiou the four fields, or conditions, for a truth’s emergence are Science, Art, Politics, and Love. A truth can only emerge through an event in one of these categories. Each new inaugurates a new ‘situation’ with it’s own set of rules. Each situation has a ‘count’, and any element of the situation is a part of the ‘count’ of the situation. Thus, each element of a situation ‘counts’ as a part of the whole. For example; the inception of Jazz music was an event that took place within the “generic procedure” of Art. The initial occurrence of Jazz music emerged from a void, which was nothing but the empty space existing in the absence of what would later come to be known as Jazz music.
The event of Jazz subsequently changed the situation in which it emerged; before its founding event Jazz simply didn’t ‘count’ as part of the situation, but after this emergence Jazz inaugurated a new situation in which it was included in the ‘count’ of elements within the situation.For Badiou, truth and subjectivity are intertwined in a fashion quite similar to that of Kierkegaard; and each emerges from the founding of an event. Subjectivity takes place when an individual claims fidelity to an event; and the truth of that event is proclaimed in a subject’s “militant proclamation” of that event and the truth it has inaugurated.The proclamation must be militant because nothing is ‘real’ or ‘settled’ in the situation, so a subject must make things happen, or make ‘shape’, of the situation. This can be seen in marriage. Although two individuals participate in a ceremony on a certain day and at a certain time, nothing truly happens. The next day each remains the same person they have been their entire life. Thus, they must live in a militant fidelity to the ‘event’ that was their marriage, and subsequently ‘make shape’ of their new situation through this fidelity.Thus, at the inception of the music which would come to be known as Jazz, certain individuals witnessed the founding event, and were subjectivized through their witnessing and subsequent fidelity to this event. The “truth” associated with this new form of art emerges through the faithful proclamation of this founding event.)

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th August 2009, 22:55

Spilteeth:

I was saying Saussure got it upside down and was wrong, not right. I was describing the framework I was using.

1) Then why bring him into this debate in the first place? His ideas are not only badly out-of-date, they are seriously confused.

2) I must have missed your negative comments on Saussure; it was not easy reading your post, since your text seemed to change size randomly, and was highly compressed. I think you need to take lessons on constructing clear arguments.

I'll ask for the 3rd time - what framework you using?

As far as I can tell, this is the first time you have asked for this.

Anyway, I am not using a 'framework', why on earth do you suppose I am, or even that I need one?

UMMMMMM I know - I quoted you and told you I was answering the 2 specific ways your using the word meaning......What the heck? You didn't even read my post?

I did, but the point needed emphasising again (see below) -- even you say some things twice!

Am I not allowed to do this?

You're thinking, in a way I tried to liken to Saussure's, is upside down.

You start with the idea of 'god doesn't exist' instead of being objective.

Where on earth did you get this idea from?

In fact, as I have said several times, I begin with my allegation that the word 'god' is meaningless, so the question whether 'he' exists or not is an empty question, since it contains a meaningless word: 'god'.

That is why I have to say things several times, since you seem to want to read into my posts what you want to see there, not what I actually say.

Your question is 'meaningless' since it fails to frame itself in a way that produces meaning - ie apprehend the subject 'god'

And what 'question' was that?

And, once more, until you tell us what the word 'god' refers to, or what the nature of god is, this response of yours is devoid of meaning, since, once more it contains an empty word, 'god'.

And, you 'god'-botherers [I]cannot tell us this; so you are in a permanent bind here.

Lets test out the two hypothesis.

What 'hypotheses' are you on about? I have put none forward; I can't speak for you.

It is true (as you say) that divine is meaningless and the words used to describe them only if god does not exists, so then lets posit the opposite : god does exist. Now those words are not self-referential and they are meaningful.

This is not what I have argued, so this is wasted effort again.

Here it is again -- I have to reaped things several times for you, since once is never enough:

In fact, as I have said several times, I begin with my allegation that the word 'god' is meaningless, so the question whether 'he' exists or not is an empty question, since it contains a meaningless word: 'god'.

In fact, I am not at all concerned with 'his' existence, since neither you nor I know what we are asking this existential question of -- neither of us understands what this word relates to.

Or, if you do, you are being remarkably coy about it.

god does exist. Now those words are not self-referential and they are meaningful.

Ah, but the sentence 'God exists' is meaningless, since it contains an empty word, 'god'.

And there is no way you can tell us what you mean by this word without using other empty terms, forming a self-referential, meaningless set, as I said.

So then we need a def of god, the Pauline one, as you mentioned is abstract - "beyond definition, god is love etc"

Since god cannot be defined the word god and divine is, as you say, by definition meaningless.

I nowhere say that the word 'god' is meaningless 'by definition' -- I try to avoid using this word ('definition') -- it is one you and BTB are fixated upon, not me.

Once more: this word ('god') is 'meaningless' since you lot cannot tell us what it means without using other meaningless words.

And are you committed to St Paul's brainless attempt to tell us what God is?

I hope not, for it has a few untoward implications you might not be aware of.

And even if you are committed to it, the sentence 'God is love' is itself meaningless since it contains an empty word, namely 'god'.

[I]Whatever you try to do, you will always hit this brick wall -- and no wonder, even you 'god'-botherers tell us you haven't a clue what 'god' is (except you have to use other meaningless words to try to tell us something about 'him').

My entire post was to simply say that the framework your using cannot judge the meaning of god or divine, it is the wrong tool.

Once more, I am not using a 'framework'.

Yes, you cannot actually talk about god and be sensical, within your framework.
You must frame it in a different way if you would like to understand how god generates meaning.

But, once more, these sentences themselves are devoid of meaning, since they contain an empty word: 'god'.

So, is god and divine 'meaningful' in the 2 ways you are using meaning.

NO.

Again, you are correct, god and divine are meaningless terms in that context.
I thought that was pretty well implied.

(although i thought i explained how the average Joe can talk about 'god' and be understood but lets forget that)

Yet they have meaning in other ways, and just as a virologist does not use the same def of life as a biologist, If your curious, and let me frame the question in a way that can generate meaning, I'll tell you the framework I use. I'll briefly summarize.

Usually I use Badiou's frame since he's a hardcore atheist and all his posits are grounded in mathematical theory.

And yet, for all this bluster, we still have no idea what you are talking about -- and neither have you, for you too do not know what 'god' is (except you use other meaningless words), nor anything about 'his' nature.

In that case, with an empty term like this, it is impossible to generate meaning -- as I noted earlier, you might just as well have used the word 'schmod'.

Sure, you can get emotionally attached to the word 'schmod' too, but that is your affair. As with the word 'god' (which has meaning in sense (1), and perhaps (2) for you), attachment to the use of a word is not at all what you lot mean by worshipping 'god'.

In that respect you direct your prayers and devotion to something outside yourself (or, rather, distinct from you); and in that sense of 'god', neither you, nor I, nor anyone else in the entire history of Christianity has a clue what this 'something' is.

Or if they did, they kept it well hidden.

So, this is not about whether you mean 'meaning' in the way I suggest, you cannot give this word any meaning that meshed with they way you worship this 'something' -- in fact, you cannot even tell us if it is 'something or no -- for that would go against the passage from Isaiah I quoted in my last post.

You can't tell us whether 'god'' is a 'something' or even a 'nothing'!

As several Christian mystics observed, all you can do is face this conundrum in silence.

And thanks for this, but it seems about as relevant as the words and figures printed on a supermarket receipt!

In Badiou’s ontology truth emerges from an “event”; and this event comes from the “empty set”, or void. These “truth-events” can be produced within four possible fields, or “generic procedures”. For Badiou the four fields, or conditions, for a truth’s emergence are Science, Art, Politics, and Love. A truth can only emerge through an event in one of these categories. Each new inaugurates a new ‘situation’ with it’s own set of rules. Each situation has a ‘count’, and any element of the situation is a part of the ‘count’ of the situation. Thus, each element of a situation ‘counts’ as a part of the whole. For example; the inception of Jazz music was an event that took place within the “generic procedure” of Art. The initial occurrence of Jazz music emerged from a void, which was nothing but the empty space existing in the absence of what would later come to be known as Jazz music.

The event of Jazz subsequently changed the situation in which it emerged; before its founding event Jazz simply didn’t ‘count’ as part of the situation, but after this emergence Jazz inaugurated a new situation in which it was included in the ‘count’ of elements within the situation. For Badiou, truth and subjectivity are intertwined in a fashion quite similar to that of Kierkegaard; and each emerges from the founding of an event. Subjectivity takes place when an individual claims fidelity to an event; and the truth of that event is proclaimed in a subject’s “militant proclamation” of that event and the truth it has inaugurated. The proclamation must be militant because nothing is ‘real’ or ‘settled’ in the situation, so a subject must make things happen, or make ‘shape’, of the situation. This can be seen in marriage. Although two individuals participate in a ceremony on a certain day and at a certain time, nothing truly happens. The next day each remains the same person they have been their entire life. Thus, they must live in a militant fidelity to the ‘event’ that was their marriage, and subsequently ‘make shape’ of their new situation through this fidelity. Thus, at the inception of the music which would come to be known as Jazz, certain individuals witnessed the founding event, and were subjectivized through their witnessing and subsequent fidelity to this event. The “truth” associated with this new form of art emerges through the faithful proclamation of this founding event.)

I am struggling to see how this helps.

spiltteeth

18th August 2009, 23:19

Spilteeth:

1) Then why bring him into this debate in the first place? His ideas are not only badly out-of-date, they are seriously confused.

2) I must have missed your negative comments on Saussure; it was not easy reading your post, since your text seemed to change size randomly, and was highly compressed. I think you need to take lessons on constructing clear arguments.

As far as I can tell, this is the first time you have asked for this.

Anyway, I am not using a 'framework', why on earth do you suppose I am, or even that I need one?

I did, but the point needed emphasising again (see below) -- even you say some things twice!

Am I not allowed to do this?

Where on earth did you get this idea from?

In fact, as I have said several times, I begin with my allegation that the word 'god' is meaningless, so the question whether 'he' exists or not is an empty question, since it contains a meaningless word: 'god'.

That is why I have to say things several times, since you seem to want to read into my posts what you want to see there, not what I actually say.

And what 'question' was that?

And, once more, until you tell us what the word 'god' refers to, or what the nature of god is, this response of yours is devoid of meaning, since, once more it contains an empty word, 'god'.

And, you 'god'-botherers [I]cannot tell us this; so you are in a permanent bind here.

What 'hypotheses' are you on about? I have put none forward; I can't speak for you.

This is not what I have argued, so this is wasted effort again.

Here it is again -- I have to reaped things several times for you, since once is never enough:

In fact, as I have said several times, I begin with my allegation that the word 'god' is meaningless, so the question whether 'he' exists or not is an empty question, since it contains a meaningless word: 'god'.

In fact, I am not at all concerned with 'his' existence, since neither you nor I know what we are asking this existential question of -- neither of us understands what this word relates to.

Or, if you do, you are being remarkably coy about it.

Ah, but the sentence 'God exists' is meaningless, since it contains an empty word, 'god'.

And there is no way you can tell us what you mean by this word without using other empty terms, forming a self-referential, meaningless set, as I said.

I nowhere say that the word 'god' is meaningless 'by definition' -- I try to avoid using this word ('definition') -- it is one you and BTB are fixated upon, not me.

Once more: this word ('god') is 'meaningless' since you lot cannot tell us what it means without using other meaningless words.

And are you committed to St Paul's brainless attempt to tell us what God is?

I hope not, for it has a few untoward implications you might not be aware of.

And even if you are committed to it, the sentence 'God is love' is itself meaningless since it contains an empty word, namely 'god'.

[I]Whatever you try to do, you will always hit this brick wall -- and no wonder, even you 'god'-botherers tell us you haven't a clue what 'god' is (except you have to use other meaningless words to try to tell us something about 'him').

Once more, I am not using a 'framework'.

But, once more, these sentences themselves are devoid of meaning, since they contain an empty word: 'god'.

And yet, for all this bluster, we still have no idea what you are talking about -- and neither have you, for you too do not know what 'god' is (except you use other meaningless words), nor anything about 'his' nature.

In that case, with an empty term like this, it is impossible to generate meaning -- as I noted earlier, you might just as well have used the word 'schmod'.

Sure, you can get emotionally attached to the word 'schmod' too, but that is your affair. As with the word 'god' (which has meaning in sense (1), and perhaps (2) for you), attachment to the use of a word is not at all what you lot mean by worshipping 'god'.

In that respect you direct your prayers and devotion to something outside yourself (or, rather, distinct from you); and in that sense of 'god', neither you, nor I, nor anyone else in the entire history of Christianity has a clue what this 'something' is.

Or if they did, they kept it well hidden.

So, this is not about whether you mean 'meaning' in the way I suggest, you cannot give this word any meaning that meshed with they way you worship this 'something' -- in fact, you cannot even tell us if it is 'something or no -- for that would go against the passage from Isaiah I quoted in my last post.

You can't tell us whether 'god'' is a 'something' or even a 'nothing'!

As several Christian mystics observed, all you can do is face this conundrum in silence.

And thanks for this, but it seems about as relevant as the words and figures printed on a supermarket receipt!

Are you drunk, by any chance?

ROSA I AM AGREEING WITH YOU!

"This word is 'meaningless' since you lot cannot tell us what it means without using other meaningless words.

And are you committed to St Paul's brainless attempt to tell us what God is?

I hope not, for it has a few untoward implications you might not be aware of.

And even if you are committed to it, the sentence 'God is love' is itself meaningless since it contains an empty word, namely 'god'.

[I]Whatever you try to do, you will always hit this brick wall -- and no wonder, even you 'god'-botherers tell us you haven't a clue what 'god' is (except you use other meaningless words to try to tell us something about 'him')."

THAT IS CORRECT.
(However, beginning from the premise that 'god' or 'smod' is an empty term creates some problems since you've already defined the word to some degree a priori but whatever)

By 'definition', I meant how you yourself defined how you were using 'meaning'.
Redread your post.

However we can change the way we frame 'meaning' and put it into another contexual understanding, so that the word 'divine' and 'god' can generate meaning. ie- Badiou.

You reject Badiou or dismiss it, Ok.

I think his way of applying 'meaning' to 'god' makes more sense than the 2 definitions you've decided to concentrate on, thats all I'm saying.

I'm not drunk. Please, lets keep this respectful, I'll do my best. why go there?

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th August 2009, 23:27

Spilteeth:

ROSA I AM AGREEING WITH YOU!

But, you cannot even get my ideas right so how can you be agreeing with me?

Here's another example:

By 'definition', I meant how you yourself defined how you were using 'meaning'.
Redread your post.

I did not define this word, I merely gave different uses of it.

Re-read my posts, this time with some glasses on.

And here's another example:

However we can change the way we frame 'meaning' and put it into another contexual understanding, so that the word 'divine' and 'god' can generate meaning. ie- Badiou.

You reject Badiou or dismiss it, Ok.

I didn't reject or dismiss Badiou, I just failed to see how it was relevant -- still don't.

I think his way of applying 'meaning' to 'god' makes more sense than the 2 definitions you've decided to concentrate on, thats all I'm saying.

I covered this point in my post -- re-read it.

I'm not drunk. Please, lets keep this respectful, I'll do my best. why go there?

That's why I removed that comment while you were misreading my last post.

spiltteeth

18th August 2009, 23:47

Spilteeth:

But, you cannot even get my ideas right so how can you be agreeing with me?

Here's another example:

I did not define this word, I merely gave different uses of it.

Re-read my posts, this time with some glasses on.

And here's another example:

I didn't reject or dismiss Badiou, I just failed to see how it was relevant -- still don't.

I covered this point in my post -- re-read it.

That's why I removed that comment while you were misreading my last post.

"But, you cannot even get my ideas right so how can you be agreeing with me?"

I literally quoted what you said and then replied 'correct.'

"I did not define this word, I merely gave different uses of it."

Yes Rosa, I did not mean to imply you yourself created the meanings for these words.
My apologies.
You gave SPECIFICALLY the two uses you were using, that is what I've been going by.

The Badiou quote has no relevance to the two uses of 'meaning' you've pointed to.
As I said, I posted it in case you were curious how I would use 'meaning' if I were to posit something of god as it relates to worship.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th August 2009, 01:58

Spilteeth:

I literally quoted what you said and then replied 'correct.'

And yet, elsewhere, you tried to paraphrase me in your own words, but interpolated your own ideas as if they were mine, so this series of 'corrects' shows that you have an insecure grasp of what I said.

In which case, and once more:

But, you cannot even get my ideas right so how can you be agreeing with me?

You:

You gave SPECIFICALLY the two uses you were using, that is what I've been going by.

There were in fact three; see how insecure your grasp even of counting is!

The Badiou quote has no relevance to the two uses of 'meaning' you've pointed to.
As I said, I posted it in case you were curious how I would use 'meaning' if I were to posit something of god as it relates to worship.

And, as I pointed out, the Badiou stuff is irrelevant, since neither you, nor anyone else for that matter, has a clue what it is you are worshipping.

spiltteeth

19th August 2009, 03:13

Spilteeth:

And yet, elsewhere, you tried to paraphrase me in your own words, but interpolated your own ideas as if they were mine, so this series of 'corrects' shows that you have an insecure grasp of what I said.

In which case, and once more:

You:

There were in fact three; see how insecure your grasp even of counting is!

And, as I pointed out, the Badiou stuff is irrelevant, since neither you, nor anyone else for that matter, has a clue what it is you are worshiping.

"There were in fact three; see how insecure your grasp even of counting is!"

These were the 2, please point out the 3rd. :

"Sure, you can get emotionally attached to the word 'schmod' too, but that is your affair. As with the word 'god' (which has meaning in sense (1), and perhaps (2) for you), attachment to the use of a word is not at all what you lot mean by worshipping 'god'."

"And, as I pointed out, the Badiou stuff is irrelevant, since neither you, nor anyone else for that matter, has a clue what it is you are worshipping."

Actually, I also pointed out it was irelevent, but not because I have "no clue what it is you are worshipping" although thats true in one sense, partially true in a 2nd sense, and false in the 3rd sense, but before we start on that, lets get into the present conversation. .

But before we actually start this conversation, so these misunderstandings do not keep occurring, please answer these 3:

1) Please tell me what you mean by "clue"

2) Please tell me how you think meaning is generated within language (you say you have no framework, fine. I -apparently mistakenly-assumed it was some structuralist/post structualist Saussure 'well, a word is a signifier that points to a concept which points to the thing its referring to" framework, which I reject.)

3) Since you have set this argument in your own terms, and the Badiou framework which I get me "clue" is mathematically grounded outside of linguistics, please explain to me how you think meaning is generated outside of language.

I thought I understood what you were saying, but perhaps you're right.
Clearing these 3 things will provide the common ground to proceed and then perhaps I will have some more clarity.

However, having said that, I do actually think I understand your argument, I thought it was pretty simple and self evident (god is an empty term because the words using to descibe it are empty and it ends in a self-referential loop of trying to prove the validity of one term with another invalid term) but I suppose I cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain until we clear up these 3 things.

You're right, my argument was not rigorously argued, most of it was implied and simply presented conclusions of which I assumed you would be familiar with how I came to them.

We will start from the very basics and then proceed nice and slow point by point, since this is how you demand to be spoken too.

I will reference all linguistic theory I cite in the future.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th August 2009, 15:21

Spilteeth:

These were the 2, please point out the 3rd. :

Here it is:

I suspect you mean (as in 'intend') perhaps (1), or, maybe (2), whereas I mean (as in 'intend') (4) and sometimes (6) or (8).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1522767&postcount=85

Actually, I also pointed out it was irrelevant, but not because I have "no clue what it is you are worshipping" although that's true in one sense, partially true in a 2nd sense, and false in the 3rd sense, but before we start on that, lets get into the present conversation.

This seems to mean that you worship that which makes you feel good, or which has personal significance for you (like say a Teddy Bear) -- whereas you haven't a clue whether or not 'it' exists, or even what 'it' is if 'it' exists, even if 'it' is an 'it'.

And you said you were an orthodox Christian; but this does not look like the alleged faith of the Apostles and the Prophets.

In fact, you have faith in 'you-do-not-know-what'.

1) Please tell me what you mean by "clue"

What is says: you have absolutely no idea about the nature of 'god', or even if 'he' has one.

That is why, 'god' has no meaning for you either (except as a sort of totem to make you feel better).

2) Please tell me how you think meaning is generated within language (you say you have no framework, fine. I -apparently mistakenly-assumed it was some structuralist/post structualist Saussure 'well, a word is a signifier that points to a concept which points to the thing its referring to" framework, which I reject.)

I have no idea. I prefer to leave that to the Linguists.

3) Since you have set this argument in your own terms, and the Badiou framework which I get me "clue" is mathematically grounded outside of linguistics, please explain to me how you think meaning is generated outside of language.

Same comment, except I am not sure what this means: "meaning generated outside of language".

And you are right, I am neither a structuralist nor a post-structuralist -- in philosophy I am a 'nothing-at-all-ist' -- but by that I do not mean I am a nihilist.

I mean, I reject all philosophical theory as self-important hot air.

spiltteeth

19th August 2009, 21:24

Spilteeth:

Here it is:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1522767&postcount=85

This seems to mean that you worship that which makes you feel good, or which has personal significance for you (like say a Teddy Bear) -- whereas you haven't a clue whether or not 'it' exists, or even what 'it' is if 'it' exists, even if 'it' is an 'it'.

And you said you were an orthodox Christian; but this does not look like the alleged faith of the Apostles and the Prophets.

In fact, you have faith in 'you-do-not-know-what'.

What is says: you have absolutely no idea about the nature of 'god', or even if 'he' has one.

That is why, 'god' has no meaning for you either (except as a sort of totem to make you feel better).

I have no idea. I prefer to leave that to the Linguists.

Same comment, except I am not sure what this means: "meaning generated outside of language".

And you are right, I am neither a structuralist nor a post-structuralist -- in philosophy I am a 'nothing-at-all-ist' -- but by that I do not mean I am a nihilist.

I mean, I reject all philosophical theory as self-important hot air.

Well, there's alot wrong with this.

"This seems to mean that you worship that which makes you feel good, or which has personal significance for you (like say a Teddy Bear) -- whereas you haven't a clue whether or not 'it' exists, or even what 'it' is if 'it' exists, even if 'it' is an 'it'.

And you said you were an orthodox Christian; but this does not look like the alleged faith of the Apostles and the Prophets.

In fact, you have faith in 'you-do-not-know-what'."

I have not explained my faith at all. Have not even begun too.

I said : "although that's true in one sense, partially true in a 2nd sense, and false in the 3rd sense, but before we start on that, lets get into the present conversation."

I did not explain what I meant by that. I want to get this out of the way first. Since I did not offer an explanation I find it bizarre you would conclude my non-existent explanation translates into a faith of " 'you-do-not-know-what'

Also from my non-existent explanation of my faith you've concluded :

"This seems to mean that you worship that which makes you feel good, or which has personal significance for you (like say a Teddy Bear) -- whereas you haven't a clue whether or not 'it' exists, or even what 'it' is if 'it' exists, even if 'it' is an 'it'."

Since you have defined 'clue' as an idea, then you are wrong. You may say I am simply worshiping an idea (even if represented in negative-representation), thats fine. Thats a diff matter.

Also, you are wrong when you say Worship makes me feel better. It does not. It does not bind anxiety for me.

Also, if it has personal meaning, which it does, then logically I do have an idea which, as you say, has meaning (personal)
(And I know you don't think you're talking about personal meaning, ie using meaning in that sense)

You are talking about several very different things.

"That is why, 'god' has no meaning for you either (except as a sort of totem to make you feel better)."

A totem. Ok. Lets discuss this. You are suggesting that I have a symptom (anxiety, existential angst etc) that I try to 'feel better' from. These symptoms I then fetitishtically disavow onto god, as opposed to the symptom returning to me as the original trauma (ironically I've actually thought the same about you, 'this is how Rosa is using the forum, to bind anxiety so she doesn't have to suffer the emotional affect of some child-hood trauma, but obviously I haven't "a clue" if thats true or not) To do this 1) I have to have an idea of god. 2) In that very way it would necessarily generate meaning.

We've entered psychology, which is where I was going to go anyway.

Your argument, which was what I intended to contend, is based on a linguistic fallacy of how meaning is generated.

Also, because meaning can be generated outside of language, we need to talk about subjectivity, thats why I wanted to know what you meant by 'clue' and even 'idea.'

But really, there's so much confusion and contradiction even in this simple post of yours I'm not sure its worthwhile to sort out.

Also, besides linguistics, I would be arguing philosophical concepts from an orthodox position, nothing fancy, based mainly on Heidegger and Orthodox theologian Zizioulas, he wrote that book 'being as communion.'

If you reject this I don't know how I'd proceed to explain my faith and how it doesn't jive with what your saying, once I understand what your saying.

Listen, I'm not nit-picking, but if your argument is as I've briefly summarized it (god is an empty term because the words using to describe it are empty and it ends in a self-referential loop of trying to prove the validity of one term with another invalid term) -and please address this if it is correct or if not how- then this really is a matter of signifiers and representations and concepts (ideas/clue)
In other words - linguistics.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th August 2009, 23:32

Spiltteeth:

I have not explained my faith at all. Have not even begun too.

And I doubt you can without using yet more meaningless terms.

Since I did not offer an explanation I find it bizarre you would conclude my non-existent explanation translates into a faith of " 'you-do-not-know-what'

Well, since you have so far failed to tell us precisely what you have faith in, I think it is fair to say that you, like all the other believers I have debated this, have faith in 'you-know-not-what'.

Also, you are wrong when you say Worship makes me feel better. It does not. It does not bind anxiety for me.

But it cannot only have this effect on you, otherwise much of the new Testament was wrong.

But, even if this were so, it has an emotional impact on you, and that is all I need.

A totem. Ok. Lets discuss this. You are suggesting that I have a symptom (anxiety, existential angst etc) that I try to 'feel better' from. These symptoms I then fetitishtically disavow onto god, as opposed to the symptom returning to me as the original trauma (ironically I've actually thought the same about you, 'this is how Rosa is using the forum, to bind anxiety so she doesn't have to suffer the emotional affect of some child-hood trauma, but obviously I haven't "a clue" if that's true or not) To do this 1) I have to have an idea of god. 2) In that very way it would necessarily generate meaning.

We've entered psychology, which is where I was going to go anyway.

I could not see what this had to do with what I posted.

And, it looks like you are beginning to invent again:

Your argument, which was what I intended to contend, is based on a linguistic fallacy of how meaning is generated.

But, my argument does not depend on how 'meaning' is generated (seems you think meaning is like electricity!), as I pointed out to you in response to a direct question from you in my last post -- indeed, you can examine what I have said with an electron microscope, and you will see that 'generated' (and none of its synonyms) appears in anything I have written.

I just appealed to the different uses of this word that we already have, and noted that the words you employ in relation to 'god', etc., have no meaning in the senses I indicated, and that the senses in which they do have meaning for you are of no help at all in telling either you or anyone else what the alleged object of your worship is.

So, we have no idea what you believers mean when you use the word 'god' and neither have you.

Or, if you do, you (plural and singular) have kept this a well-hidden secret for 2000 years, or more.

No mention of 'generating' meaning here anywhere -- nor is it even implied.

Also, because meaning can be generated outside of language, we need to talk about subjectivity, that's why I wanted to know what you meant by 'clue' and even 'idea.'

I asked you what this meant, and you have so far failed to tell us: What is meaning 'outside language'?

But really, there's so much confusion and contradiction even in this simple post of yours I'm not sure its worthwhile to sort out.

Well, [I]you can't even count correctly the senses of meaning I used in an earlier post, so you are not well-placed to spot anything more complicated in my posts (such as if there are any alleged 'contradictions' in there).

So, to prove me wrong: I challenge you to point one of these 'contradictions' out.

Also, besides linguistics, I would be arguing philosophical concepts from an orthodox position, nothing fancy, based mainly on Heidegger and Orthodox theologian Zizioulas, he wrote that book 'being as communion.'

That certainly helps explain your confused state of mind. And, it is a bit rich of you relying on Heidegger when he was a card-carrying Nazi, and ruling-class hack.

If you reject this I don't know how I'd proceed to explain my faith and how it doesn't jive with what your saying, once I understand what your saying.

Well if you can't make your case, replying to my ordinary language challenge that the word 'god' is meaningless, using ordinary language in that reply, I do not see how you can show that 'god' has any meaning at all in the ordinary ways I indicated. After all, I wasn't using technical language

If anything, Heidegger will get in the way.

Listen, I'm not nit-picking, but if your argument is as I've briefly summarized it (god is an empty term because the words using to describe it are empty and it ends in a self-referential loop of trying to prove the validity of one term with another invalid term) -and please address this if it is correct or if not how- then this really is a matter of signifiers and representations and concepts (ideas/clue)
In other words - linguistics.

Well, I have already explained all this: we do not need technical terms to use and understand ordinary words.

And I haven't used the word 'signifier' for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post.

spiltteeth

20th August 2009, 00:38

Spiltteeth:

And I doubt you can without using yet more meaningless terms.

But it cannot only have this effect on you, otherwise much of the new Testament was wrong.

But, even if this were so, it has an emotional impact on you, and that is all I need.

I could not see what this had to do with what I posted.

And, it looks like you are beginning to invent again:

But, my argument does not depend on how 'meaning' is generated (seems you think meaning is like electricity!), as I pointed out to you in response to a direct question from you in my last post -- indeed, you can examine what I have said with an electron microscope, and you will see that 'generated' (and none of its synonyms) appears in anything I have written.

I just appealed to the different uses of this word that we already have, and noted that the words you employ in relation to 'god', etc., have no meaning in the senses I indicated, and that the senses in which they do have meaning for you are of no help at all in telling either you or anyone else what the alleged object of your worship is.

So, we have no idea what you believers mean when you use the word 'god' and neither have you.

Or, if you do, you (plural and singular) have kept this a well-hidden secret for 2000 years, or more.

No mention of 'generating' meaning here anywhere -- nor is it even implied.

I asked you what this meant, and you have so far failed to tell us: What is meaning 'outside language'?

Well, you can't even count correctly the senses of meaning I used in an earlier post, so you are not well-placed to spot anything more complicated in my posts (such as if there are any alleged 'contradictions' in there).

[I]So, to prove me wrong: I challenge you to point one of these 'contradictions' out.

That certainly helps explain your confused state of mind. And, it is a bit rich of you relying on Heidegger when he was a card-carrying Nazi, and ruling-class hack.

Well if you can't make your case, replying to my ordinary language challenge that the word 'god' is meaningless, using ordinary language in that reply, I do not see how you can show that 'god' has any meaning at all in the ordinary ways I indicated. After all, I wasn't using technical language

If anything, Heidegger will get in the way.

Well, I have already explained all this: we do not need technical terms to use and understand ordinary words.

And I haven't used the word 'signifier' for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post.

Good lord Rosa, you've repeated so many mistakes.

"And I doubt you can without using yet more meaningless terms."

Ah, well, this is called 'contempt before investigation' it is an unattractive quality which must be suspended or else a scientific discussion will be marred by your prejudices and assumptions.

"Well, since you have so far failed to tell us precisely what you have faith in, I think it is fair to say that you, like all the other believers I have debated this, have faith in 'you-know-not-what'. "

Oh dear, yet another fallacy. A contradiction in fact. You are using the word 'failure' wrong, since I have not -as you acknowledge- attempted to explain my faith, how could I have failed at it?
This is simple logic.

But there is another contradiction (2!) in the same sentence.
Although you acknowledge I haven't attempted to explain my faith, you think its fair to say what I believe in.
Again, simple logic. Based on previous explanations one cannot logically predict the next one based on a different source (me vs the others) How is this fair? How can you presuppose that I will use the same arguments when you don't know me.

"But it cannot only have this effect on you, otherwise much of the new Testament was wrong."

True! Although, sine I plan to get into the nature of subjectivity, the term 'effect' is imprecise.

"But, even if this were so, it has an emotional impact on you, and that is all I need."

Dearest lord in heaven yet another logical fallacy! Since I have not explained my faith, or laid out my argument, you cannot possibly know what you 'need' to oppose it with. Again, an assumption born in contempt to logic and the scientific method.

"But, my argument does not depend on how 'meaning' is generated (seems you think meaning is like electricity!), as I pointed out to you in response to a direct question from you in my last post -- indeed, you can examine what I have said with an electron microscope, and you will see that 'generated' (and none of its synonyms) appears in anything I have written.

I just appealed to the different uses of this word that we already have, and noted that the words you employ in relation to 'god', etc., have no meaning in the senses I indicated, and that the senses in which they do have meaning for you are of no help at all in telling either you or anyone else what the alleged object of your worship is."

Well, you know I agree with you on this point, I've so (twice) already.

I think the trouble is with the question, not the answer, which has the seeds of its own contradiction in it.
Previously you asked me "What question" which I had assumed you'd know is 'is god a term with meaning' - I'm leading up to show how the process of coming at that question, as well as the question itself, is problematical, which is where your understanding of how meaning is generated (no, not like electricity, I actually gave a very brief and simple overview previously-it has to do with condensation and ordering) thats all.

"So, we have no idea what you believers mean when you use the word 'god' and neither have you."

Here we go again! A church like dogma you have in your baseless opinions!

"
Or, if you do, you (plural and singular) have kept this a well-hidden secret for 2000 years, or more.

No mention of 'generating' meaning here anywhere -- nor is it even implied."

That;s true, but you might be -or not- surprised at how much more varied our vocabulary has become since so many new ways of understanding have come about. Although I do believe I hinted at the sources I will be utilizeing...

"Well, you can't even count correctly the senses of meaning I used in an earlier post, so you are not well-placed to spot anything more complicated in my posts (such as if there are any alleged 'contradictions' in there).

So, to prove me wrong: I challenge you to point one of these 'contradictions' out."

Well, I will be polite and at this point and merely concern myself with only one, all the this conversation rests on what you've been positing about 'god' being an empty term. The conversation can go no further unless we understand each other, I've said this before. And YET you still will not address my neat little summing up of what your saying to see if I understand you correctly.
Without me understanding you correctly, don't you see this is a contradiction to furthering the conversation if it is based on my misunderstanding?

"That certainly helps explain your confused state of mind. And, it is a bit rich of you relying on Heidegger when he was a card-carrying Nazi, and ruling-class hack."

Before posting that I'd be relying on Heide to some degree I wondered if your prejudges would get in the way. His comments on technology aside, please explain to me how his being a Nazi is relevant?

If it isn't let's not keep bringing up these extraneous things, look at all the confusion so far!

Well if you can't make your case, replying to my ordinary language challenge that the word 'god' is meaningless, using ordinary language in that reply, I do not see how you can show that 'god' has any meaning at all in the ordinary ways I indicated. After all, I wasn't using technical language

If anything, Heidegger will get in the way.

"Well if you can't make your case, replying to my ordinary language challenge that the word 'god' is meaningless, using ordinary language in that reply, I do not see how you can show that 'god' has any meaning at all in the ordinary ways I indicated. After all, I wasn't using technical language"

I think I've replied enough we're (if I understand you correctly) I agree with you.
We can still avoid extraordinary Language, but we must use it correctly.

"I asked you what this meant, and you have so far failed to tell us: What is meaning 'outside language'?

[I note you will have to use language to tell us...]"

Oh, I apologize. I did note it would have to be through negative representation though, however this has to do with worship, not my criticism of your question. So, you see there are several things to clear up before this will even come into play and as it is your post is very messy (Although I warn you part of its kernel is in Badiou's theory of the event.)

To clarify, lets separate all these issues (my faith from my 'criticism' of how you've chosen to approach the question of god being an empty term vs etc)

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th August 2009, 16:12

Spiltteeth:

Good lord Rosa, you've repeated so many mistakes.

Well, as we have seen already, you are good at accusation, not too good at substantiation.

In fact, as I have pointed out several times, you can't even count correctly.

Ah, well, this is called 'contempt before investigation' it is an unattractive quality which must be suspended or else a scientific discussion will be marred by your prejudices and assumptions.

Not so; as I pointed out in an earlier post, I used to be a believer, and I have read and studied the theological classics (St Augustine, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventure, Suarez, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, Bultmann, Pallenberg, etc. etc.), I have argued with scores of believers over the years (some of whom are university lecturers in theology), and not one of the latter could say what they believed in, or worshipped, except they used other meaningless terms in the process.

Now, since you struggle to count correctly, I rather think that with respect to your good self, I am not in the presence of another St Thomas Aquinas -- so, it's a pretty safe bet that you can do no better than these characters.

And, as we have seen, up to now, you haven't even tried!

In response to this comment of mine:

"Well, since you have so far failed to tell us precisely what you have faith in, I think it is fair to say that you, like all the other believers I have debated this, have faith in 'you-know-not-what'. "

You replied:

Oh dear, yet another fallacy. A contradiction in fact. You are using the word 'failure' wrong, since I have not -as you acknowledge- attempted to explain my faith, how could I have failed at it?
This is simple logic.

Once more, your accusing finger needs to be rotated through 180 degrees, since I pointedly said:

Well, since you have so far failed to tell us precisely what you have faith in

Notice, you failed to tell us, not that you failed at explaining it after you had tried to tell us -- as you say:

since I have not - as you acknowledge- attempted to explain my faith, how could I have failed at it?

Compare that with someone who fails to attempt to count the three examples of 'meaning' I intended earlier (not you), with someone who attempts to count them, but fails to do so correctly (you).

Can you now see the difference? One is a failure to do something, the other is to do that something and then fail to do it successfully. You have yet to try to explain your faith to us, in that sense, you failed to explain it, as I said.

So, your reputation as the next St Thomas Aquinas is sinking faster with each new post of yours -- take my advice: quit while you are a long way behind --, since you do not seem to be able to understand even simple English sentences.

But there is another contradiction (2!) in the same sentence.
Although you acknowledge I haven't attempted to explain my faith, you think its fair to say what I believe in.
Again, simple logic. Based on previous explanations one cannot logically predict the next one based on a different source (me vs the others) How is this fair? How can you presuppose that I will use the same arguments when you don't know me.

It's not a contradiction, even if it may or may not be mistaken.

In that case, your knowledge of 'simple logic' looks about as convincing as your ability to count.

And note, I said this:

"Well, since you have so far failed to tell us precisely what you have faith in, I think it is fair to say that you, like all the other believers I have debated this, have faith in 'you-know-not-what'. "

As I have explained this above, your continued prevarication here suggests I was correct in this judgement of you and your incapacity to tell us exactly what the object of your faith/worship is.

Until you rise to this challenge, just like every other believer I have debated this with, and just like the Christian classicists I listed above, I think we can conclude that you have faith in a "you-do-not-know-what".

The Christian mystics were far more honest, here -- they at least acknowledge this fact.

And, as I also said, it would be very easy for you to put me in my place by becoming the very first person in the history of Christianity to say precisely what 'god' is (without using yet more meaningless terms).

So, can you put your theological mouth where your poor logic and number skills now are?

Dearest lord in heaven yet another logical fallacy! Since I have not explained my faith, or laid out my argument, you cannot possibly know what you 'need' to oppose it with. Again, an assumption born in contempt to logic and the scientific method.

I think you are confusing the phrase 'logical fallacy' with 'error', 'falsehood' and/or 'mistake' -- which is not surprising since you seem not to be able to count correctly.

In which case, you are the one who shows a marked contempt for "logic and the scientific method".

Well, you know I agree with you on this point, I've [said] so (twice) already.

If so, why did you post this?

Your argument, which was what I intended to contend, is based on a linguistic fallacy of how meaning is generated.

Bold added.

It seems that you do not even understand your own posts, since, when I posted this:

But, my argument does not depend on how 'meaning' is generated (seems you think meaning is like electricity!), as I pointed out to you in response to a direct question from you in my last post -- indeed, you can examine what I have said with an electron microscope, and you will see that 'generated' (and none of its synonyms) appears in anything I have written.

in reply to the above, you now say this!

Well, you know I agree with you on this point, I've [said] so (twice) already.

So, you both think and do not think that my "argument...is based on a linguistic fallacy of how meaning is generated" (your words again).

Now, either you spin a sentence around in your head until its angular velocity overcomes the forces of good sense, and out it pops, or you like being enigmatic, or you do not care what you say -- or all three.

But then, what is this?

Previously you asked me "What question" which I had assumed you'd know is 'is god a term with meaning' - I'm leading up to show how the process of coming at that question, as well as the question itself, is problematical, which is where your understanding of how meaning is generated (no, not like electricity, I actually gave a very brief and simple overview previously-it has to do with condensation and ordering) that's all.

It seems now that you don't agree with me, and think it important how 'meaning is generated'.

So, all three then...

Here we go again! A church like dogma you have in your baseless opinions!

Well, and once more, you could put me in my place by telling us what exactly you believe 'god' to be, instead of throwing up a smokescreen trying to hide the fact that you can't do this.

In more than half a dozen posts now, you haven't even tried.

And you wonder why I suspect you can't!

Well, I will be polite and at this point and merely concern myself with only one, all the this conversation rests on what you've been positing about 'god' being an empty term. The conversation can go no further unless we understand each other, I've said this before. And YET you still will not address my neat little summing up of what your saying to see if I understand you correctly.

Without me understanding you correctly, don't you see this is a contradiction to furthering the conversation if it is based on my misunderstanding?

Your alleged 'summary' of what I am saying is unnecessary -- all you have to do is read what I have said with more care than you have shown up to now -- learn to count, and look up the meaning of 'logical fallacy', among several other things --and refrain from attributing to me things I do not believe.

I have chosen to write in plain English -- if that's not good enough for you, there's not much else I can do.

Anyway, I take all this as further prevarication -- it puts off the evil day when you have to confront the unwelcome fact that you cannot tell us what precisely it is that you have faith in, or worship. It cannot be pleasant realising that, after all these years, all you can respond with is a smokescreen and then miffed silence.

Moreover, it is a sign of just how desperate you are becoming that you are thrashing about for something -- anything -- to throw at me, like 'logical fallacy' (when it's plain you do not know what these are), 'contradiction' (when you seem to confuse this with 'falsehood' or 'error'), and 'scientific method' (when this is inapplicable here -- do you suppose we can carry out measurements and experiments to settle this?)

Before posting that I'd be relying on Heide[gger] to some degree I wondered if your prejudges would get in the way. His comments on technology aside, please explain to me how his being a Nazi is relevant?

Because it strikes me as decidedly odd that a lefty is prepared to take intellectual guidance from a Nazi (I know how you'd react if I were to quote Mein Kampf in support of anything I said); this is quite apart from the fact that Heidegger was a ruling-class hack, who was quite happy to spout meaningless, a priori dogma at his readers.

I think I've replied enough we're (if I understand you correctly) I agree with you.

But, you don't, since you can't even get the simple things I say right -- or, are you content to agree with things that go right over your head (as they seem to have done)?

To clarify, lets separate all these issues (my faith from my 'criticism' of how you've chosen to approach the question of god being an empty term vs etc)

Even better: let's see you, for the first time in Christian history, try to tell us precisely what 'god' means (without using yet more empty terms), and exactly what it is that you worship.

Even for your own peace of mind, you need to answer this challenge.

spiltteeth

21st August 2009, 09:48

Spiltteeth:

Well, as we have seen already, you are good at accusation, not too good at substantiation.

In fact, as I have pointed out several times, you can't even count correctly.

Not so; as I pointed out in an earlier post, I used to be a believer, and I have read and studied the theological classics (St Augustine, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventure, Suarez, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, Bultmann, Pallenberg, etc. etc.), I have argued with scores of believers over the years (some of whom are university lecturers in theology), and not one of the latter could say what they believed in, or worshipped, except they used other meaningless terms in the process.

Now, since you struggle to count correctly, I rather think that with respect to your good self, I am not in the presence of another St Thomas Aquinas -- so, it's a pretty safe bet that you can do no better than these characters.

And, as we have seen, up to now, you haven't even tried!

In response to this comment of mine:

You replied:

Once more, your accusing finger needs to be rotated through 180 degrees, since I pointedly said:

Notice, you failed to tell us, not that you failed at explaining it after you had tried to tell us -- as you say:

Compare that with someone who fails to attempt to count the three examples of 'meaning' I intended earlier (not you), with someone who attempts to count them, but fails to do so correctly (you).

Can you now see the difference? One is a failure to do something, the other is to do that something and then fail to do it successfully. You have yet to try to explain your faith to us, in that sense, you failed to explain it, as I said.

So, your reputation as the next St Thomas Aquinas is sinking faster with each new post of yours -- take my advice: quit while you are a long way behind --, since you do not seem to be able to understand even simple English sentences.

It's not a contradiction, even if it may or may not be mistaken.

In that case, your knowledge of 'simple logic' looks about as convincing as your ability to count.

And note, I said this:

As I have explained this above, your continued prevarication here suggests I was correct in this judgement of you and your incapacity to tell us exactly what the object of your faith/worship is.

Until you rise to this challenge, just like every other believer I have debated this with, and just like the Christian classicists I listed above, I think we can conclude that you have faith in a "you-do-not-know-what".

The Christian mystics were far more honest, here -- they at least acknowledge this fact.

And, as I also said, it would be very easy for you to put me in my place by becoming the very first person in the history of Christianity to say precisely what 'god' is (without using yet more meaningless terms).

So, can you put your theological mouth where your poor logic and number skills now are?

I think you are confusing the phrase 'logical fallacy' with 'error', 'falsehood' and/or 'mistake' -- which is not surprising since you seem not to be able to count correctly.

In which case, you are the one who shows a marked contempt for "logic and the scientific method".

If so, why did you post this?

Bold added.

It seems that you do not even understand your own posts, since, when I posted this:

in reply to the above, you now say this!

So, you both think and do not think that my "argument...is based on a linguistic fallacy of how meaning is generated" (your words again).

Now, either you spin a sentence around in your head until its angular velocity overcomes the forces of good sense, and out it pops, or you like being enigmatic, or you do not care what you say -- or all three.

But then, what is this?

It seems now that you don't agree with me, and think it important how 'meaning is generated'.

So, all three then...

Well, and once more, you could put me in my place by telling us what exactly you believe 'god' to be, instead of throwing up a smokescreen trying to hide the fact that you can't do this.

In more than half a dozen posts now, you haven't even tried.

And you wonder why I suspect you can't!

Your alleged 'summary' of what I am saying is unnecessary -- all you have to do is read what I have said with more care than you have shown up to now -- learn to count, and look up the meaning of 'logical fallacy', among several other things --and refrain from attributing to me things I do not believe.

I have chosen to write in plain English -- if that's not good enough for you, there's not much else I can do.

Anyway, I take all this as further prevarication -- it puts off the evil day when you have to confront the unwelcome fact that you cannot tell us what precisely it is that you have faith in, or worship. It cannot be pleasant realising that, after all these years, all you can respond with is a smokescreen and then miffed silence.

Moreover, it is a sign of just how desperate you are becoming that you are thrashing about for something -- anything -- to throw at me, like 'logical fallacy' (when it's plain you do not know what these are), 'contradiction' (when you seem to confuse this with 'falsehood' or 'error'), and 'scientific method' (when this is inapplicable here -- do you suppose we can carry out measurements and experiments to settle this?)

Because it strikes me as decidedly odd that a lefty is prepared to take intellectual guidance from a Nazi (I know how you'd react if I were to quote Mein Kampf in support of anything I said); this is quite apart from the fact that Heidegger was a ruling-class hack, who was quite happy to spout meaningless, a priori dogma at his readers.

But, you don't, since you can't even get the simple things I say right -- or, are you content to agree with things that go right over your head (as they seem to have done)?

Even better: let's see you, for the first time in Christian history, try to tell us precisely what 'god' means (without using yet more empty terms), and exactly what it is that you worship.

Even for your own peace of mind, you need to answer this challenge.

"Well, as we have seen already, you are good at accusation, not too good at substantiation.

In fact, as I have pointed out several times, you can't even count correctly."

So many errors. First you presume (you do this a lot) that I have seen that I am good at accusation and not too good at substantiation.

Now, when did I acknowledge this? If I were as rude, I could throw a 'your making things up- comment. But I'm not.

As for the counting - I've been practicing! Surly you do not believe in the continuity of consciousness? In the ego?
I’m somewhat confused with your use of ‘you,’ surely you don’t believe in the ego do you? A term just as empty as ‘god’ since it enjoys a similar status of self-referencing invalidity. So let us stop, you and I, our commitment to an illusion. Sometimes I worry you only apply the empty-word hypothesis to things most convenient to your own prejudices. You remind me of a young count Korzybski, Really I wish we could communicate in glyphs, but then I’d need Rosa stone.

"Not so; as I pointed out in an earlier post, I used to be a believer, and I have read and studied the theological classics (St Augustine, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventure, Suarez, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, Bultmann, Pallenberg, etc. etc.), I have argued with scores of believers over the years (some of whom are university lecturers in theology), and not one of the latter could say what they believed in, or worshipped, except they used other meaningless terms in the process."

My point was based in logic. It is illogical to think that nothing new..well, it's so obvious need I really explain?

"Now, since you struggle to count correctly, I rather think that with respect to your good self, I am not in the presence of another St Thomas Aquinas -- so, it's a pretty safe bet that you can do no better than these characters."

Dearest, you have made so many presumptions here and then decided to answer them yourself. Is this -answer my honestly- how you generally investigate?
Why do you think I've struggled with counting? You keep bringing it up so an important part of your argument may rest on this? Is it because I miscounted? Well, there many other explanations...but you choose the most convenient to your predjudes...
Again, you presume I'm going to tell you what god is!
Where did I say this!
A less cultured person might say something about accusations being thrown around...I merely say I haven't explained my faith.

"And, as we have seen, up to now, you haven't even tried!"

Didn't I give a reason for that? I;m certain I did. How can I try when you claim I don't understand you? This is so obvious I am ashamed to have written it yet again.

"In response to this comment of mine:

You replied:

Once more, your accusing finger needs to be rotated through 180 degrees, since I pointedly said:

Notice, you failed to tell us, not that you failed at explaining it after you had tried to tell us -- as you say:"

That is true, I should have said : How can I have failed to tell you when I haven't even attempted it? Surly this isn't a failure!

"Compare that with someone who fails to attempt to count the three examples of 'meaning' I intended earlier (not you), with someone who attempts to count them, but fails to do so correctly (you).

Can you now see the difference? One is a failure to do something, the other is to do that something and then fail to do it successfully. You have yet to try to explain your faith to us, in that sense, you failed to explain it, as I said."

Oh, certainly I will not believe that you read over what you wrote right here. I haven't tried it - how can it be a failure?

"So, your reputation as the next St Thomas Aquinas is sinking faster with each new post of yours -- take my advice: quit while you are a long way behind --, since you do not seem to be able to understand even simple English sentences."

Another assumption. The next St Thomas etc when I haven't even said I was going to tell you what god was! So many assumptions you've been answering!
Again and again you imagine my faith and then tell me what it is...

"It's not a contradiction, even if it may or may not be mistaken.

In that case, your knowledge of 'simple logic' looks about as convincing as your ability to count."

Well, I can claim the same to you for the above 'I've read alot of stuff so nothing new can be under the sun for me' statement.

"And note, I said this:

As I have explained this above, your continued prevarication here suggests I was correct in this judgment of you and your incapacity to tell us exactly what the object of your faith/worship is."

Now Rosa - did I ever make this claim? Or are you -yet again- playing make believe?

"Until you rise to this challenge, just like every other believer I have debated this with, and just like the Christian classicists I listed above, I think we can conclude that you have faith in a "you-do-not-know-what".

YET ANOTHER PRESUMPTION! Your post is positively filthy with them. You don't think there is any other way of avoiding the conclusion of having a faith in yadda yadda than by rising to this challenge!

But, I know you've read some philosophy, so you know, especially in the past 50yrs, its greatest utility is not in giving answers, but in pointing out how best to ask the question...

"The Christian mystics were far more honest, here -- they at least acknowledge this fact.

And, as I also said, it would be very easy for you to put me in my place by becoming the very first person in the history of Christianity to say precisely what 'god' is (without using yet more meaningless terms)."

Well, I know I'm no good at that darn logic, but if I agree with you...than how can I disagree with you...? And, lets be honest with each other, I did say the questions framing is problematic.

"So, can you put your theological mouth where your poor logic and number skills now are?"

No, I won't be having recourse to any theology except presupposing god is triune in nature.

"I think you are confusing the phrase 'logical fallacy' with 'error', 'falsehood' and/or 'mistake' -- which is not surprising since you seem not to be able to count correctly."

The counting again?! Does it have that much relevance on your argument? Would like to give me another simple counting problem, that I can solve and redeem myself? I will not believe that these are child -like low blows. This must be ESSENTIAL!

"In which case, you are the one who shows a marked contempt for "logic and the scientific method"."

Well, I have admitted my mistake...and you...

"If so, why did you post this?"

Oh my sweet pappy Rosa! How could you possibly ask such a dumb question? Because YOU have said that when I put your idea in my own words I got it all wrong? Was this a hallucination of mine? So I put it in my own words, gave it a second go, posted it in 2 posts, and now YOU SIMPLY MUST TELL ME IF I GOT IT RIGHT OR WRONG SO WE CAN GO ON ALREADY for pete's sake. If wrong tell me how. Is this not simple. Do you need help...I'll post it a third time because I think your worth it, :
god is an empty term because the words using to describe it are empty and it ends in a self-referential loop of trying to prove the validity of one term with another invalid term
Now I've asked you to comment on this a few times now for the sake of my own mind (I hate being so pushy but else can I do?) address it please

"Bold added.

It seems that you do not even understand your own posts, since, when I posted this:

in reply to the above, you now say this!

So, you both think and do not think that my "argument...is based on a linguistic fallacy of how meaning is generated" (your words again).

Now, either you spin a sentence around in your head until its angular velocity overcomes the forces of good sense, and out it pops, or you like being enigmatic, or you do not care what you say -- or all three."

Well, I know I've this but I'll just put it with childish ease : Rosa answer good Question bad.

"But then, what is this?

It seems now that you don't agree with me, and think it important how 'meaning is generated'.

So, all three then..."

Well, it may seem that way to you...

"Well, and once more, you could put me in my place by telling us what exactly you believe 'god' to be, instead of throwing up a smokescreen trying to hide the fact that you can't do this."

I'll blow the smoke away : I CAN'T DO THIS.

"In more than half a dozen posts now, you haven't even tried.

And you wonder why I suspect you can't!"

I never wondered that. Reading my mind again?

"Your alleged 'summary' of what I am saying is unnecessary -- all you have to do is read what I have said with more care than you have shown up to now -- learn to count, and look up the meaning of 'logical fallacy', among several other things --and refrain from attributing to me things I do not believe."

Well this is sheer bull. How could it be unnecessary when you accused me of misunderstanding when I put it in my own words. You say I misunderstand. I am not so arrogant. I wonder if indeed I might. So I put it into my own words and plainly ask - is this right?

Oh, the counting again. You've chosen to mention this 6 or 7 (I'm still practicing) times now instead of saying weather I got your idea down or not in my 2nd go. Please tell me this is not pettiness but essential.

I will assume the part " refrain from attributing to me things I do not believe" is a joke, since you've done nothing but foster presumption upon presumption upon me.

"I have chosen to write in plain English -- if that's not good enough for you, there's not much else I can do.

Anyway, I take all this as further prevarication -- it puts off the evil day when you have to confront the unwelcome fact that you cannot tell us what precisely it is that you have faith in, or worship. It cannot be pleasant realising that, after all these years, all you can respond with is a smokescreen and then miffed silence."

It was pleasant when I understood ‘god’ is not an empty term when put in the context of ritual. Just like the word ‘life.’ Its general dictionary definition is fine for 7th grader’s, buts its too general for the real world. In this sense, since it fails to objectively define life, it is incorrect. But ‘correct’ is the wrong measure, we ought to think in terms of usefulness. So that a virologist has a different definition of life. The objective definition changes within the context of the circumstances in which it is used. A lot of theory and science is like that. I could ask the definition of a photon, is it a wave or a particle? Well, it depends on whether it’s being observed or not. Why that’s like god! It’s only a meaningful term if it is, a priori, observed. How can that be? That is where old Heidegger comes in with his ‘circumference of meaning’ as it relates to subjectivity. Speaking of relational values, my clue about my idea of god is that he’s triune. That is, he only exists as a relation being, between his 3 parts, not an objective self-sustaining entity. Actually, not too different from a person; you’ve read Hegel. You know his idea’s that there is no ‘I’ without a ‘you’ so that we are constantly defining our selves, and that together you and I make a 3rd term, a ‘we;’ just so is god communally constituted, hence, ‘Being as Communion.’ So, we can’t know god, but we can position ourselves in correct relation to Him, in communion the word ‘god’ has meaning, but not separately as an objective definition, in that sense, as you correctly say, ‘god’ is an empty term. Meaning comes only relationally and in context of a human being (Hint of Heidegger –humans are the ‘keepers’ of the world etc since by their very objective/subjective split they keep rent the void etc) they That is all I’m going to be getting at, but you and I must work up to that, starting with linguistics. Obviously none of this will 'prove god exists', merely that it makes sense that the term god can have meaning if the nature of the question is changed.
I hinted at it, you did not take the hint, that to come to your conclusion you must have started from a question : Is god a meaningful term (perhaps, I must assume since you ignored this in the last post which is why I didn't want to get into this until you told me how you asked the question and weather I understood you correctly, but I'm fearing you my keep this hidden, sub Rosa) To come to the conclusion you must posit it beginning -a priori- that god does have meaning (if you knew before hand you'd know the question makes no sense so you'd never ask it, you'd know the very question is flawed) and then try it the other way -god is a term with meaning. (if this isn't how you did it then forgive me -your silence forces me to presume) Both start is a priori posits. Now, if we change the posit to a different question , and begin with god is a meaningful term, I say we can show how this makes elegant sense (doesn't make it true, but it does make it useful, meaningful in a relational sense) if we posit -a priori -that 'god' is not an empty term, but at least has a triune nature.

"Because it strikes me as decidedly odd that a lefty is prepared to take intellectual guidance from a Nazi (I know how you'd react if I were to quote Mein Kampf in support of anything I said); this is quite apart from the fact that Heidegger was a ruling-class hack, who was quite happy to spout meaningless, a priori dogma at his readers."

Ha! I swear I didn't post the above before reading this! Again...you assume...I try to judge by content. So if Hitler had birthday parties I would not reject them based on that.

"But, you don't, since you can't even get the simple things I say right -- or, are you content to agree with things that go right over your head (as they seem to have done)?"

Well, I have tried again and Agni for you to read my simple summing up of your ideas, ask you -politely!- to correct me and show me where I'm wrong and you refuse! So, you can't say Its all my fault. Clearly I'm not content because I keep asking you.

"Even better: let's see you, for the first time in Christian history, try to tell us precisely what 'god' means (without using yet more empty terms), and exactly what it is that you worship."

Even for your own peace of mind, you need to answer this challenge.[/QUOTE]"

Oh goodness. Yet another presumption. More of this is in answer to your imagination than anything I've said! Does that strike you as odd?
I can't tell you precisely what god is is what I worship, simply that I have an idea and even if I did know it would not be communicable as truth cannot be communicated via objectivity -see that Badiou post to give you an idea why - and finally my Peace of mind has only a tangental relationship with this challenge - which I never said I could answer, I might add.

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st August 2009, 13:00

Spiltteeth:

So many errors. First you presume (you do this a lot) that I have seen that I am good at accusation and not too good at substantiation.

Now, when did I acknowledge this? If I were as rude, I could throw a 'your making things up- comment. But I'm not.

Well, what I said was this:

Well, as we have seen already, you are good at accusation, not too good at substantiation.

Your incapacity to read simple English sentences once more comes to the surface, for where in there did I say you had seen this? That is why I used 'we', not 'you and the rest of us'.

Even so, you are still long on accusation, short on proof -- and this failing is compounded even more by this latest post of yours.

As for the counting - I've been practicing! Surly you do not believe in the continuity of consciousness? In the ego?

Well, you needed it -- but your new lack of facility with simple words like 'we' is not reassuring.

And now the same problem arises with the word 'you':

I’m somewhat confused with your use of ‘you,’ surely you don’t believe in the ego do you? A term just as empty as ‘god’ since it enjoys a similar status of self-referencing invalidity. So let us stop, you and I, our commitment to an illusion. Sometimes I worry you only apply the empty-word hypothesis to things most convenient to your own prejudices. You remind me of a young count Korzybski, Really I wish we could communicate in glyphs, but then I’d need Rosa stone.

If you can't grasp the ordinary use of 'you' without spiralling-off into such weird flights-of-fancy, no wonder you have problems with more complex words like 'god'.

And, you seem not to be able to grasp the fact that when I use 'you' of you, that it refers to you (even though you also use the word 'you' to refer to me -- so this comment of yours is just another smokescreen to hide the plight you are in).

So, if 'god' is a referring phrase, too (as this comment of yours seems to concede), perhaps you can tell us what it refers to?

[Yes I know it is stupid of me to expect an answer -- since not even you know what it refers to. So, we can look forward to yet another smokescreen.]

My point was based in logic. It is illogical to think that nothing new..well, it's so obvious need I really explain?

In view of the fact that you confuse contradiction' with 'falsehood', 'error' and 'mistake', I think we'd be foolish not to ask you to explain yourself here -- since, it is apparent, at least to me, that you haven't used any logic at all (least of all where you now say you have). I seriously doubt you know what logic is.

Again, I fully expect you will ignore this too, and throw up yet another smokescreen.

Dearest, you have made so many presumptions here and then decided to answer them yourself. Is this -answer my honestly- how you generally investigate?
Why do you think I've struggled with counting? You keep bringing it up so an important part of your argument may rest on this? Is it because I miscounted? Well, there many other explanations...but you choose the most convenient to your prejudices...
Again, you presume I'm going to tell you what god is!
Where did I say this!
A less cultured person might say something about accusations being thrown around...I merely say I haven't explained my faith.

Why, sweety-pie, as I have pointed out several times (so this is yet more prevarication on your part): since you failed to count correctly to the number three when you tried to comment on the number of uses of 'meaning' to which I appealed in an earlier post.

If your memory is so poor, and you need reminding again, cutie-pie, just let me know.

And, I did not presume you were going to tell me what 'god' is, since I repeatedly said that not one of you believers knows what 'god' is -- I even kept saying things like 'not even you know this'.

So, once again, your incapacity to read simple English is plain for all to see (except, perhaps, you, since you can't read).

How can I have failed to tell you when I haven't even attempted it? Surly this isn't a failure!

I'm glad I could help you understand a simple English sentence. Except, you now go on to make the same mistake!

Oh, certainly I will not believe that you read over what you wrote right here. I haven't tried it - how can it be a failure?

Perhaps we can persuade some other kind soul here to try to explain the difference between not trying to do something, and thus failing to do it, and trying to do something and then failing to do it.

I keep alleging the first, and you keep assuming I am alleging the second!

Anyway, and once more, your repeated failure to tell us what you think 'god' is (in the sense I mentioned above: that is, you fail even to try) suggests that you can't do this anymore than the Christian classicists I mentioned above have been able to do, when they at least tried!

So: put me in my place once and for all: rise to this challenge.

Expect yet another smokescreen, folks!]

Another assumption. The next St Thomas etc when I haven't even said I was going to tell you what god was! So many assumptions you've been answering!
Again and again you imagine my faith and then tell me what it is...

Too right you aren't going to do this -- or even try -- as I have repeatedly said; and that's why you aren't going to be another St Thomas Aquinas. At least he tried!

Now Rosa - did I ever make this claim? Or are you -yet again- playing make believe?

And where have I said you would? I merely challenged you to do so, and you have shied away each time -- and for reasons the rest of us can easily guess.

You clearly find it easy/convenient to confuse a challenge with an assertion.

YET ANOTHER PRESUMPTION! Your post is positively filthy with them. You don't think there is any other way of avoiding the conclusion of having a faith in yadda yadda than by rising to this challenge!

Like you never presume anything.

In contrast to your presumptions about me, mine are based on more solid evidence, in this case, your consistent failure to explain precisely what it is you have faith in/worship. You won't even tell us about this 'alternative method'.

So, let me repeat this 'presumption': I think we can safely conclude that you can't tell us what this 'You-know-not-what' that lies at the heart of your faith is.

[As we will see at the end, this 'presumption' of mine turns out to be correct.]

Yet another golden opportunity to put me in my place has slipped through your fingers.

Ok, so it's not too late to rescue your rapidly dwindling credibility: prove me wrong by being the first believer in the history of theism to tell us what precisely you have faith in.

Or are you just an expert at throwing up smokescreens, hoping I'll give in?

Well, even you will be able to see (ha! some hope!) that this tactic is not working; I have exposed the empty nature of your beliefs -- or, alternatively, your incapacity to explain them. And I will continue to do so.

But, I know you've read some philosophy, so you know, especially in the past 50yrs

50 years!?? Where did you get that from?

its greatest utility is not in giving answers, but in pointing out how best to ask the question

But, in over 2400 years of trying, philosophers are no nearer even that goal!

No, I won't be having recourse to any theology except presupposing god is triune in nature.

This means that 'god' is probably only dual in nature, given your incapacity to count.

And yet, this sentence is without content, since it contains at least one empty term (which you have yet to explain), namely 'god'.

For all the good it does, you might just as well have posted this:

No, I won't be having recourse to any theology except presupposing schmod is triune in nature.

But, what about this?

The counting again?! Does it have that much relevance on your argument? Would like to give me another simple counting problem, that I can solve and redeem myself? I will not believe that these are child -like low blows. This must be ESSENTIAL!

1) I repeat this several times, as I have also done above, since you are rather forgetful.

2) It undermines your right to point fingers at me --- if you can't count, then complex issues in logic and the scientific method (which you recruit to your cause) are clearly beyond you.

3) What, like your 'low blows' about my alleged 'errors' which you regularly fail to substantiate.

Well, I have admitted my mistake...and you...

Well, the only mistake I have made is to assume you could argue rationally, and would not throw up a smokescreen.

Oh my sweet pappy Rosa! How could you possibly ask such a dumb question? Because YOU have said that when I put your idea in my own words I got it all wrong? Was this a hallucination of mine? So I put it in my own words, gave it a second go, posted it in 2 posts, and now YOU SIMPLY MUST TELL ME IF I GOT IT RIGHT OR WRONG SO WE CAN GO ON ALREADY for pete's sake. If wrong tell me how. Is this not simple. Do you need help...I'll post it a third time because I think your worth it, :
god is an empty term because the words using to describe it are empty and it ends in a self-referential loop of trying to prove the validity of one term with another invalid term
Now I've asked you to comment on this a few times now for the sake of my own mind (I hate being so pushy but else can I do?) address it please

And yet, you said you agreed with me, and then proceeded to go back to the original point and admit it again. So, one moment you say you agree with me when I said that the generation of meaning is of no interest to me, since it is not relevant, the next you are telling us that the generation of meaning is important!

And that is why I said you do not even understand your own posts.

'Address' what exactly? I have commented on this in practically every one of my posts, pointing out that 'god' is an empty term, and the whole collection is a self-referential set of empty terms.

How many more times do I have to say it? What more is there for me to say until you rise to the challenge (ha! some hope!) and show either were I go wrong, or why 'god' is not an empty term.

[Notice, too, I did not use the word 'invalid'. That's another of interpolation of yours.]

Rosa answer good Question bad.

Eh? :confused:

Well, it may seem that way to you...

And your own words suggest it too.

I'll blow the smoke away : I CAN'T DO THIS.

Are you beginning to lose it?

Or have you taken up verbal rambling as a new hobby?

I never wondered that. Reading my mind again?

No, just your badly constructed posts.

Well this is sheer bull. How could it be unnecessary when you accused me of misunderstanding when I put it in my own words. You say I misunderstand. I am not so arrogant. I wonder if indeed I might. So I put it into my own words and plainly ask - is this right?

No it's not.

Hint: read my posts more carefully.

Oh, the counting again. You've chosen to mention this 6 or 7 (I'm still practicing) times now instead of saying weather I got your idea down or not in my 2nd go. Please tell me this is not pettiness but essential.

And, I'll continue to do so just as long as you 1) misrepresent my ideas, 2) accuse me of errors you cannot substantiate, and 3) claim I ignore logic and the scientific method.

I'll stop only when you do.

I will assume the part " refrain from attributing to me things I do not believe" is a joke, since you've done nothing but foster presumption upon presumption upon me.

The difference, as I pointed out above, is that my 'presumptions' are based on mounting evidence (with each new post of yours, the smokescreen you are throwing up gets thicker and thicker, and your prevarication becomes ever more plain to see), whereas yours are based on interpolation and fabrication.

So, now you attempt to rise to the challenge (but, why the larger text?):

It was pleasant when I understood ‘god’ is not an empty term when put in the context of ritual. Just like the word ‘life.’ Its general dictionary definition is fine for 7th grader’s, buts its too general for the real world. In this sense, since it fails to objectively define life, it is incorrect. But ‘correct’ is the wrong measure, we ought to think in terms of usefulness. So that a virologist has a different definition of life. The objective definition changes within the context of the circumstances in which it is used. A lot of theory and science is like that. I could ask the definition of a photon, is it a wave or a particle? Well, it depends on whether it’s being observed or not. Why that’s like god! It’s only a meaningful term if it is, a priori, observed. How can that be? That is where old Heidegger comes in with his ‘circumference of meaning’ as it relates to subjectivity. Speaking of relational values, my clue about my idea of god is that he’s triune. That is, he only exists as a relation being, between his 3 parts, not an objective self-sustaining entity. Actually, not too different from a person; you’ve read Hegel. You know his idea’s that there is no ‘I’ without a ‘you’ so that we are constantly defining our selves, and that together you and I make a 3rd term, a ‘we;’ just so is god communally constituted, hence, ‘Being as Communion.’ So, we can’t know god, but we can position ourselves in correct relation to Him, in communion the word ‘god’ has meaning, but not separately as an objective definition, in that sense, as you correctly say, ‘god’ is an empty term. Meaning comes only relationally and in context of a human being (Hint of Heidegger –humans are the ‘keepers’ of the world etc since by their very objective/subjective split they keep rent the void etc) they That is all I’m going to be getting at, but you and I must work up to that, starting with linguistics. Obviously none of this will 'prove god exists', merely that it makes sense that the term god can have meaning if the nature of the question is changed.

Where do I ask for a definition?

Anyway, nice try, except you never actually get around to telling us what the word 'god' means without using yet more empty terms -- you admit you cannot know 'god', but then say you want to position yourself in relation to 'him', but you can't even say that, since not even you know what the alleged object of this relation is.

So, you might just as well try to relate yourself to schmod.

I hinted at it, you did not take the hint, that to come to your conclusion you must have started from a question : Is god a meaningful term (perhaps, I must assume since you ignored this in the last post which is why I didn't want to get into this until you told me how you asked the question and whether I understood you correctly, but I'm fearing you my [??] keep this hidden, sub Rosa) To come to the conclusion you must posit it beginning -a priori- that god does have meaning (if you knew before hand you'd know the question makes no sense so you'd never ask it, you'd know the very question is flawed) and then try it the other way -god is a term with meaning. (if this isn't how you did it then forgive me -your silence forces me to presume) Both start is a priori posits. Now, if we change the posit to a different question , and begin with god is a meaningful term, I say we can show how this makes elegant sense (doesn't make it true, but it does make it useful, meaningful in a relational sense) if we posit -a priori -that 'god' is not an empty term, but at least has a triune nature.

I'm sorry, I can't make head-or-tail of this rambling passage -- I'd accuse you of being drunk again, but I do not want to be nasty.

The only substantive point I can glean from this prize example of confusion (which is yet another smokescreen) is that you think I have assumed that 'god' has a meaning.

But, I have assumed no such thing -- if anything, the exact opposite.

Your incapacity to grasp this simple point (which I have made literally dozens of times), and your assumption that I assume the opposite of what I have said/assumed, should tell you why I keep pointing to your similar incapacity to count.

Ha! I swear I didn't post the above before reading this! Again...you assume...I try to judge by content. So if Hitler had birthday parties I would not reject them based on that.

Don't be silly, sharing a common practice (such a celebrating birthdays) with a Nazi is not the same as taking intellectual advice from one.

Are you honesty saying you'd be happy to take advice from Hitler (on the Jews, for example)?

The fact that you refuse to see this is just one more clue how desperate you are becoming.

Your tactic now seems to be: The smokescreen just isn't working, so thrash about for something -- anything --, no matter how ridiculous it is, to throw at Rosa.

Well, I have tried again and Agni [?? who's Agni?] for you to read my simple summing up of your ideas, ask you -politely!- to correct me and show me where I'm wrong and you refuse! So, you can't say Its all my fault. Clearly I'm not content because I keep asking you.

And I pointed you back to my own explanation of my ideas, all expressed in plain English -- so, if that's not good enough for you, too bad.

Notice, I do not try to summarise you, I just quote you.

There's plenty enough ammunition in there as it is.

Oh goodness. Yet another presumption. More of this is in answer to your imagination than anything I've said! Does that strike you as odd?
I can't tell you precisely what god is is what I worship, simply that I have an idea and even if I did know it would not be communicable as truth cannot be communicated via objectivity -see that Badiou post to give you an idea why - and finally my Peace of mind has only a tangential relationship with this challenge - which I never said I could answer, I might add.

No presupposition here, other than that you are a believer, since this is a challenge, to which you, like all other believers, cannot rise.

And, I am glad you now admit, as I have alleged all along, that you worship a 'You-know-not-what', and from this we may conclude that even for you' 'god' is an empty term.

This is because, every time you use it, you have no idea what you are referring to --, and neither has anyone else.

So, for all you lot know, you might be worshipping schmod --, or, what is more likely, nothing at all.

RaÃºl Duke

22nd August 2009, 16:21

The Pharisees said that for the sake of their place (social status) and their nation, Jesus must die. They did not have the authority to crucify Jesus, yet the Romans did. And the Romans went along with it, because of how much of a challenge Jesus was to their power structure. The Romans killed Jesus' followers for the same reason, insubordination. Refusing to recognize Caesar as your supreme ruler, and recognizing everything he stands for as morally wrong was considered a serious threat to the status quo, just as it is today.

...

Do you seriously believe everything in face-value?

The Romans were more afraid of the Hebrews and other local people they subjugated (who could cause revolt) when they took control of Palestine.

Therefore, the decision to execute Jesus, if he even existed, was more out of fear of the local population revolting (which if we are to believe what is written in the bible, seemed to immensely dislike Jesus. The execution went ahead due to fear of what the local people would do if they didn't kill him and because the Romans seriously didn't mind executing people anyway.) despite giving out any "official reason" as being "insubordination to Ceaser."

Even today, which you mention, being a communist/anarchist (recognizing the system sucks) doesn't mean I will automatically get executed or persecuted. Presenting a threat, whether real or perceived, to the status quo however can lead to that as the experiences in the 60s show (i.e. COINTELPRO, etc). Jesus presented little of a threat at the time (relative to the rest of the population) and I even heard of a historical account that when the people of Palestine (or Jerusalem) revolted against the Romans the christians did nothing to aid the revolt and instead fled (in which afterwards, or prior to this, began a love-hate relationship with the Roman Empire that later lead them to become the official religion of the Empire). So much for being "soo radical"

spiltteeth

25th August 2009, 03:34

Splitter:

Well, what I said was this:

Your incapacity to read simple English sentences once more comes to the surface, for where in there did I say you had seen this? That is why I used 'we', not 'you and the rest of us'.

Even so, you are still long on accusation, short on proof -- and this failing is compounded even more by this latest post of yours.

Well, you needed it -- but your new lack of facility with simple words like 'we' is not reassuring.

And now the same problem arises with the word 'you':

If you can't grasp the ordinary use of 'you' without spiralling-off into such weird flights-of-fancy, no wonder you have problems with more complex words like 'god'.

And, you seem not to be able to grasp the fact that when I use 'you' of you, that it refers to you (even though you also use the word 'you' to refer to me -- so this comment of yours is just another smokescreen to hide the plight you are in).

So, if 'god' is a referring phrase, too (as this comment of yours seems to concede), perhaps you can tell us what it refers to?

[Yes I know it is stupid of me to expect an answer -- since not even you know what it refers to. So, we can look forward to yet another smokescreen.]

In view of the fact that you confuse contradiction' with 'falsehood', 'error' and 'mistake', I think we'd be foolish not to ask you to explain yourself here -- since, it is apparent, at least to me, that you haven't used any logic at all (least of all where you now say you have). I seriously doubt you know what logic is.

Again, I fully expect you will ignore this too, and throw up yet another smokescreen.

Why, sweety-pie, as I have pointed out several times (so this is yet more prevarication on your part): since you failed to count correctly to the number three when you tried to comment on the number of uses of 'meaning' to which I appealed in an earlier post.

If your memory is so poor, and you need reminding again, cutie-pie, just let me know.

And, I did not presume you were going to tell me what 'god' is, since I repeatedly said that not one of you believers knows what 'god' is -- I even kept saying things like 'not even you know this'.

So, once again, your incapacity to read simple English is plain for all to see (except, perhaps, you, since you can't read).

I'm glad I could help you understand a simple English sentence. Except, you now go on to make the same mistake!

Perhaps we can persuade some other kind soul here to try to explain the difference between not trying to do something, and thus failing to do it, and trying to do something and then failing to do it.

I keep alleging the first, and you keep assuming I am alleging the second!

Anyway, and once more, your repeated failure to tell us what you think 'god' is (in the sense I mentioned above: that is, you fail even to try) suggests that you can't do this anymore than the Christian classicists I mentioned above have been able to do, when they at least tried!

So: put me in my place once and for all: rise to this challenge.

Expect yet another smokescreen, folks!]

Too right you aren't going to do this -- or even try -- as I have repeatedly said; and that's why you aren't going to be another St Thomas Aquinas. At least he tried!

And where have I said you would? I merely challenged you to do so, and you have shied away each time -- and for reasons the rest of us can easily guess.

You clearly find it easy/convenient to confuse a challenge with an assertion.

Like you never presume anything.

In contrast to your presumptions about me, mine are based on more solid evidence, in this case, your consistent failure to explain precisely what it is you have faith in/worship. You won't even tell us about this 'alternative method'.

So, let me repeat this 'presumption': I think we can safely conclude that you can't tell us what this 'You-know-not-what' that lies at the heart of your faith is.

[As we will see at the end, this 'presumption' of mine turns out to be correct.]

Yet another golden opportunity to put me in my place has slipped through your fingers.

Ok, so it's not too late to rescue your rapidly dwindling credibility: prove me wrong by being the first believer in the history of theism to tell us what precisely you have faith in.

Or are you just an expert at throwing up smokescreens, hoping I'll give in?

Well, even you will be able to see (ha! some hope!) that this tactic is not working; I have exposed the empty nature of your beliefs -- or, alternatively, your incapacity to explain them. And I will continue to do so.

50 years!?? Where did you get that from?

But, in over 2400 years of trying, philosophers are no nearer even that goal!

This means that 'god' is probably only dual in nature, given your incapacity to count.

And yet, this sentence is without content, since it contains at least one empty term (which you have yet to explain), namely 'god'.

For all the good it does, you might just as well have posted this:

But, what about this?

1) I repeat this several times, as I have also done above, since you are rather forgetful.

2) It undermines your right to point fingers at me --- if you can't count, then complex issues in logic and the scientific method (which you recruit to your cause) are clearly beyond you.

3) What, like your 'low blows' about my alleged 'errors' which you regularly fail to substantiate.

Well, the only mistake I have made is to assume you could argue rationally, and would not throw up a smokescreen.

And yet, you said you agreed with me, and then proceeded to go back to the original point and admit it again. So, one moment you say you agree with me when I said that the generation of meaning is of no interest to me, since it is not relevant, the next you are telling us that the generation of meaning is important!

And that is why I said you do not even understand your own posts.

'Address' what exactly? I have commented on this in practically every one of my posts, pointing out that 'god' is an empty term, and the whole collection is a self-referential set of empty terms.

How many more times do I have to say it? What more is there for me to say until you rise to the challenge (ha! some hope!) and show either were I go wrong, or why 'god' is not an empty term.

[Notice, too, I did not use the word 'invalid'. That's another of interpolation of yours.]

Eh? :confused:

And your own words suggest it too.

Are you beginning to lose it?

Or have you taken up verbal rambling as a new hobby?

No, just your badly constructed posts.

No it's not.

Hint: read my posts more carefully.

And, I'll continue to do so just as long as you 1) misrepresent my ideas, 2) accuse me of errors you cannot substantiate, and 3) claim I ignore logic and the scientific method.

I'll stop only when you do.

The difference, as I pointed out above, is that my 'presumptions' are based on mounting evidence (with each new post of yours, the smokescreen you are throwing up gets thicker and thicker, and your prevarication becomes ever more plain to see), whereas yours are based on interpolation and fabrication.

So, now you attempt to rise to the challenge (but, why the larger text?):

Where do I ask for a definition?

Anyway, nice try, except you never actually get around to telling us what the word 'god' means without using yet more empty terms -- you admit you cannot know 'god', but then say you want to position yourself in relation to 'him', but you can't even say that, since not even you know what the alleged object of this relation is.

So, you might just as well try to relate yourself to schmod.

I'm sorry, I can't make head-or-tail of this rambling passage -- I'd accuse you of being drunk again, but I do not want to be nasty.

The only substantive point I can glean from this prize example of confusion (which is yet another smokescreen) is that you think I have assumed that 'god' has a meaning.

But, I have assumed no such thing -- if anything, the exact opposite.

Your incapacity to grasp this simple point (which I have made literally dozens of times), and your assumption that I assume the opposite of what I have said/assumed, should tell you why I keep pointing to your similar incapacity to count.

Don't be silly, sharing a common practice (such a celebrating birthdays) with a Nazi is not the same as taking intellectual advice from one.

Are you honesty saying you'd be happy to take advice from Hitler (on the Jews, for example)?

The fact that you refuse to see this is just one more clue how desperate you are becoming.

Your tactic now seems to be: The smokescreen just isn't working, so thrash about for something -- anything --, no matter how ridiculous it is, to throw at Rosa.

And I pointed you back to my own explanation of my ideas, all expressed in plain English -- so, if that's not good enough for you, too bad.

Notice, I do not try to summarise you, I just quote you.

There's plenty enough ammunition in there as it is.

No presupposition here, other than that you are a believer, since this is a challenge, to which you, like all other believers, cannot rise.

And, I am glad you now admit, as I have alleged all along, that you worship a 'You-know-not-what', and from this we may conclude that even for you' 'god' is an empty term.

This is because, every time you use it, you have no idea what you are referring to --, and neither has anyone else.

So, for all you lot know, you might be worshipping schmod --, or, what is more likely, nothing at all.

OK Rosa theres plenty of phallacies here and you like waving your dick around but this is going on like bad sex, were both fucking people in our heads and I'm beginning to get a bad rash.

Listen, your not intellectually honest. If you were you would say 'God' is an undefined term, not 'god' is a meaningless term.

In fact it is exactly like the term 'ego.'
Since you see 'god' as an empty term I was asking if you also see 'ego' as an empty term.

You say you don't know how meaning is generated but you already know it doesn't matter to your argument.

The nature of your question is flawed, it rests on various presuppositions that are problematical. I sketched it out, hence the answer is good but not how your approaching the question of weather or not 'god' is an empty term or not.

Confused? Well, with your intellect you could easily read a book on basic linguistic theory and see what I'm trying to say.

You thought I was trying to defend Saussure -remember? When in fact I was trying to show how your thinking is rooted in similar misapprehensions.
You were wrong.
I have not kept bringing this up like you "Oh Rosa you got that wrong therefore you can't understand english or sentences or my ideas!"

Again you misunderstood me, you mention dualism, necessarily this concept does not apply. By 'know god' my understanding is similar to Kierkegaard's, which do not apply to how you are using the word 'know' and 'idea' so you are wrong to say I have no idea to what I am referring to, only that it is necessarily misrepresented.
So my point is you are limiting all these words to a very specific structure.

The last time I heard anyone try the old 'god' is an empty term was when reading Korzybski about 15 yrs ago. Was it in 'either/or'?
But he also explained the limitations of such an approach and used Egyptian glyphs to 'rephrase' the means of apprehending 'god.'

Now, I suspect you will not be reading (or re-reading) Korzybski or any books on linguistics because you are a fanatic. You were a Christian once? Well, that is obvious. They must've really stamped you. Like a dry drunk who now longer drinks but has all the old alcoholic attitudes. You reek of Christianity. What is it you preach now? Anti-dialectics.

As to your challenge - not only can I not 'rise' to meet it, but it would be an impossibility on several counts. If you understood you'd know the question, because it has the word 'god' in it in a simplistic sense, but also because of the very way words work and meaning is generated, is a illogical question. Hence, question bad answer good.

I will be the generous one and ignore all the other silliness on both our sides. Since you do not, as you said, understand how meaning is generated, or even understand my extremely simplistic brief sketch of how Heidegger would fit into this, or how your mis-understanding of meaning is like Saussure's, or etc I'm ending this. When you do, or if, we can continue on a more constructive level. You have no knowledge of how 'knowing' something can manifest itself within ones consciousness necessarily outside of objective rationality and you don't want to know...or if you do then you also know it cannot be communicated objectively -hence the Badiou - which in your dishonesty you refuse to admit is different from 'not knowing.' Fanatics are like that.
And since also you are a fanatic I know you are compelled to have the last word. It's out of your control, I know. Your not willing to learn anything new, and your idea's are tired old linguistic aberrations from -when -20's? Is that when the whole 'god' is an empty term 1st popped up?- so I am learning nothing new, so I doubt I'll read it.

All I can say to you, in response to your compulsive post to this, is from Henri Michaux, who said :

THE TREES HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE DELIRIUM OF THE BIRDS

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th August 2009, 19:08

Spiltteeth:

OK Rosa theres plenty of phallacies here and you like waving your dick around but this is going on like bad sex, were both fucking people in our heads and I'm beginning to get a bad rash.

As I noted before:

1) You are invariably long on accusation, short on proof (and as we will see, you even forget to tell us what my alleged 'phallacies' are!) and,

2) Since you find counting a challenge, let alone simple English sentences, you are not well placed to point fingers at anyone else.

If you were you would say 'God' is an undefined term, not 'god' is a meaningless term.

How is this a 'phallacy', as you seem to think? At best, it's a methodological error.

Anyway, as I have said to you several times, I am not interested in a definition, since, if the term is meaningless, then any putative definition (unless it is stipulative) will contain a meaningless term, and will thus be devoid of meaning itself.

And, even a stipulative definition will be no use, since that will apply to 'god', not "god". We will still have no clue what you believers are banging on about when you talk about "god" -- and neither will you.

Since you see 'god' as an empty term I was asking if you also see 'ego' as an empty term.

I refuse to go along with your latest attempt to distract attention from your plight; what I do or do not think about this word has nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged meaning of "god".

Fib One:

You say you don't know how meaning is generated but you already know it doesn't matter to your argument.

I did not say this, and you know I did not. I said I did not care how meaning is allegedly generated, since this has nothing to do with whether "god" is an empty term or not.

It looks like you are now returning to an earlier ploy of yours (aimed at distracting attention once more from the fact that you can't counter my claim that "god" is an empty term): namely, fibbing about what I have said.

You tried paraphrasing me earlier, too, and that did not work; so no more smokescreens please.

Either admit, alongside the Christian mystics, that no one has a clue what they are talking about when they use the word "god", or tell us what the content of this word is -- and for the first time in Christian history.

Cue distant church bell, cue rustling leaves, cue tumbleweed...

http://www.bombtruck.net/wp-content/2009/04/20090420_tumbleweed.jpg

Figure One: The Christian response to the question, "WTF are you lot banging on about?"

The nature of your question is flawed, it rests on various presuppositions that are problematical. I sketched it out, hence the answer is good but not how your approaching the question of weather or not 'god' is an empty term or not.

1) Well, you are not too good at even getting my claims right, when they are written in simple English; in that case, you stand no chance guessing my alleged 'presuppositions',

2) Since you find counting a bit of a challenge, I won't bet on you getting my alleged 'suppositions' right, even if I had any.

3) Have we finished with my alleged 'phallacies' yet?

4) I have no 'presuppositions', except perhaps that you are in a hole. In which case my advice is: stop digging!

http://offgridness.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/02-apr-2009-008.jpg

[B]Figure Two: Hey, 'God'-Botherer: Don't forget to say 'Hello' to the Earth's Core...

You thought I was trying to defend Saussure -remember? When in fact I was trying to show how your thinking is rooted in similar misapprehensions.
You were wrong.
I have not kept bringing this up like you "Oh Rosa you got that wrong therefore you can't understand english or sentences or my ideas!"

Indeed, I mistook your intentions, but in my defence, your real aims were buried somewhere in hundreds of words of rather technical waffle.

My sentences, by way of contrast, are in plain English, I avoid technical language as far as possible, I use short paragraphs, and an even font size -- unlike you.

So, you have no excuse.

Fib Two:

Again you misunderstood me, you mention dualism, necessarily this concept does not apply. By 'know god' my understanding is similar to Kierkegaard's, which do not apply to how you are using the word 'know' and 'idea' so you are wrong to say I have no idea to what I am referring to, only that it is necessarily misrepresented.

I have not only not mentioned dualism, I haven't even used that word!

However, this phrase of yours 'knowing god' is empty too, since it contains the empty word "god".

In that case, you are in just as much of a predicament as that boring waffler Kierkegaard was.

Irrelevant Issue One:

The last time I heard anyone try the old 'god' is an empty term was when reading Korzybski about 15 yrs ago. Was it in 'either/or'?
But he also explained the limitations of such an approach and used Egyptian glyphs to 'rephrase' the means of apprehending 'god.'

Haven't read Korzybski, and never will.

Semi-Fib (but yet another smokescreen) One:

Now, I suspect you will not be reading (or re-reading) Korzybski or any books on linguistics because you are a fanatic. You were a Christian once? Well, that is obvious. They must've really stamped you. Like a dry drunk who now longer drinks but has all the old alcoholic attitudes. You reek of Christianity. What is it you preach now? Anti-dialectics.

My criticism is not based on linguistics. And I rather think you are the fanatic -- fanatically trying to distract attention from the mess you are in, again.

Your latest ploy is to try out some amateur a priori psychoanalysis on me -- even without the use of a couch!

Instead of deflecting attention on to me, as I noted above: either admit you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you use the word "god", or tell us what you are banging on about when you use it.

May I remind you that this thread is not about me and my beliefs -- much as you would like it to be, in order to distract attention once more -- it's about Christianity.

Honesty at last:

As to your challenge - not only can I not 'rise' to meet it, but it would be an impossibility on several counts. If you understood you'd know the question, because it has the word 'god' in it in a simplistic sense, but also because of the very way words work and meaning is generated, is a illogical question. Hence, question bad answer good.

So, not really, since you have ducked the challenge again -- indirectly revealing that not even you know what you are talking about when you use the word "god". But, still you expect us to take this charade, and you, seriously.

Oh-ooh, here comes that Nazi again, plus repeated Fib One:

I will be the generous one and ignore all the other silliness on both our sides. Since you do not, as you said, understand how meaning is generated, or even understand my extremely simplistic brief sketch of how Heidegger would fit into this, or how your mis-understanding of meaning is like Saussure's, or etc I'm ending this. When you do, or if, we can continue on a more constructive level.'.

My ideas on meaning are nothing at all like Saussure's, as I have told you. I challenge you to show otherwise (that is, show, not merely allege).

And thanks for this gobbledygook:

You have no knowledge of how 'knowing' something can manifest itself within ones consciousness necessarily outside of objective rationality and you don't want to know...or if you do then you also know it cannot be communicated objectively -hence the Badiou - which in your dishonesty you refuse to admit is different from 'not knowing

No more please, I want to hang on to my dinner a bit longer.

Fanatics are like that

Well, you'd know what one of these looks like -- every time you look in the mirror.

And since also you are a fanatic I know you are compelled to have the last word. It's out of your control, I know. Your not willing to learn anything new, and your idea's are tired old linguistic aberrations from -when -20's? Is that when the whole 'god' is an empty term 1st popped up?- so I am learning nothing new, so I doubt I'll read it.

Even if I were a 'fanatic' (but you merely allege this -- we have yet to see the proof -- as I said at the beginning, you are good at advancing allegations, not too good at providing substantiation -- this is probably connected with your infacility with numbers), rather that than a confused fantasist like you -- why, you do not even know what the alleged object of your religious mania is, so sorry an individual are you.

spiltteeth

28th August 2009, 01:27

Splitter:

As I noted before:

1) You are invariably long on accusation, short on proof (and as we will see, you even forget to tell us what my alleged 'fallacies' are!) and,

2) Since you find counting a challenge, let alone simple English sentences, you are not well placed to point fingers at anyone else.

How is this a 'phallacy', as you seem to think? At best, it's a methodological error.

Anyway, as I have said to you several times, I am not interested in a definition, since, if the term is meaningless, then any putative definition (unless it is stipulative) will contain a meaningless term, and will thus be devoid of meaning itself.

And, even a stipulative definition will be no use, since that will apply to 'god', not "god". We will still have no clue what you believers are banging on about when you talk about "god" -- and neither will you.

I refuse to go along with your latest attempt to distract attention from your plight; what I do or do not think about this word has nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged meaning of "god".

Fib One:

I did not say this, and you know I did not. I said I did not care how meaning is allegedly generated, since this has nothing to do with whether "god" is an empty term or not.

It looks like you are now returning to an earlier ploy of yours (aimed at distracting attention once more from the fact that you can't counter my claim that "god" is an empty term): namely, fibbing about what I have said.

You tried paraphrasing me earlier, too, and that did not work; so no more smokescreens please.

Either admit, alongside the Christian mystics, that no one has a clue what they are talking about when they use the word "god", or tell us what the content of this word is -- and for the first time in Christian history.

Cue distant church bell, cue rustling leaves, cue tumbleweed...

http://www.bombtruck.net/wp-content/2009/04/20090420_tumbleweed.jpg

Figure One: The Christian response to the question, "WTF are you lot banging on about?"

1) Well, you are not too good at even getting my claims right, when they are written in simple English; in that case, you stand no chance guessing my alleged 'presuppositions',

2) Since you find counting a bit of a challenge, I won't bet on you getting my alleged 'suppositions' right, even if I had any.

3) Have we finished with my alleged 'phallacies' yet?

4) I have no 'presuppositions', except perhaps that you are in a hole. In which case my advice is: stop digging!

http://offgridness.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/02-apr-2009-008.jpg

[B]Figure Two: Hey, 'God'-Botherer: Don't forget to say 'Hello' to the Earth's Core...

Indeed, I mistook your intentions, but in my defence, your real aims were buried somewhere in hundreds of words of rather technical waffle.

My sentences, by way of contrast, are in plain English, I avoid technical language as far as possible, I use short paragraphs, and an even font size -- unlike you.

So, you have no excuse.

Fib Two:

I have not only not mentioned dualism, I haven't even used that word!

However, this phrase of yours 'knowing god' is empty too, since it contains the empty word "god".

In that case, you are in just as much of a predicament as that boring waffler Kierkegaard was.

Irrelevant Issue One:

Haven't read Korzybski, and never will.

Semi-Fib (but yet another smokescreen) One:

My criticism is not based on linguistics. And I rather think you are the fanatic -- fanatically trying to distract attention from the mess you are in, again.

Your latest ploy is to try out some amateur a priori psychoanalysis on me -- even without the use of a couch!

Instead of deflecting attention on to me, as I noted above: either admit you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you use the word "god", or tell us what you are banging on about when you use it.

May I remind you that this thread is not about me and my beliefs -- much as you would like it to be, in order to distract attention once more -- it's about Christianity.

Honesty at last:

So, not really, since you have ducked the challenge again -- indirectly revealing that not even you know what you are talking about when you use the word "god". But, still you expect us to take this charade, and you, seriously.

Oh-ooh, here comes that Nazi again, plus repeated Fib One:

My ideas on meaning are nothing at all like Saussure's, as I have told you. I challenge you to show otherwise (that is, show, not merely allege).

And thanks for this gobbledygook:

No more please, I want to hang on to my dinner a bit longer.

Well, you'd know what one of these looks like -- every time you look in the mirror.

Even if I were a 'fanatic' (but you merely allege this -- we have yet to see the proof -- as I said at the beginning, you are good at advancing allegations, not too good at providing substantiation -- this is probably connected with your infacility with numbers), rather that than a confused fantasist like you -- why, you do not even know what the alleged object of your religious mania is, so sorry an individual are you.

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae191/spiltteeth/homeschooled_children_thumbnail.jpg

"How is this a 'phallacy', as you seem to think? At best, it's a methodological error."

Actually its a pun. I keep using them and as the treads' gone on I keep trying to make them more and more obvious. Waving your dick about? I'm saying you are engaged in a fetishistic psycho-sexual drama : "Phallus -see"

You : Stop using ploys.
Me : I agree with you, I can't meet your challenge. But, there's a book that shows how your wrong in a deeper sense...
You : I WILL NOT READ IT! Another ploy to rob me of my precious juices! Put me in my place! C'mon, give it to me! Make it hurt etc

And so goes Rosa, ignorant of all the little jokes and double meanings that have gone soaring over her head, terrified of the "ploy" of suggesting a book that explains and articulates better than I am able to the point I'm trying to make (you yourself have described my writing as drunken, so I offer a book...) and down she spirals in fetishistic panic, binding the anxiety of the child hood trauma that such knowledge may return to her in symptomatic form...run Rosa...the ghostly ploys are gaining on you...Korzboyski and Linguistics are the devil! Do not read...if 'they' can't put you in your place than nothing ever happened all those years ago...If you don't know somthing then it can't matter, it can't possibley matter...how could it? It can't...math no!!!

Hyacinth

28th August 2009, 02:34

"How is this a 'phallacy', as you seem to think? At best, it's a methodological error."

Actually its a pun. I keep using them and as the treads' gone on I keep trying to make them more and more obvious. Waving your dick about? I'm saying you are engaged in a fetishistic psycho-sexual drama : "Phallus -see"

You : Stop using ploys.
Me : I agree with you, I can't meet your challenge. But, there's a book that shows how your wrong in a deeper sense...
You : I WILL NOT READ IT! Another ploy to rob me of my precious juices! Put me in my place! C'mon, give it to me! Make it hurt etc

And so goes Rosa, ignorant of all the little jokes and double meanings that have gone soaring over her head, terrified of the "ploy" of suggesting a book that explains and articulates better than I am able to the point I'm trying to make (you yourself have described my writing as drunken, so I offer a book...) and down she spirals in fetishistic panic, binding the anxiety of the child hood trauma that such knowledge may return to her in symptomatic form...run Rosa...the ghostly ploys are gaining on you...Korzboyski and Linguistics are the devil! Do not read...if 'they' can't put you in your place than nothing ever happened all those years ago...If you don't know somthing then it can't matter, it can't possibley matter...how could it? It can't...math no!!!
What? :confused:
Though I do notice that you've ignored any substantive point made by Rosa, or anyone else for that matter, and have resorted to psychoanalytic insults—though I'm not quite sure whether such nonsense can even count as insulting.

spiltteeth

28th August 2009, 03:25

What? :confused:
Though I do notice that you've ignored any substantive point made by Rosa, or anyone else for that matter, and have resorted to psychoanalytic insults—though I'm not quite sure whether such nonsense can even count as insulting.

Firstly, I have not resorted to them, they have been there all along.

Secondly, I have literally quoted her and the said, that is correct, then she said that because of my counting problems I can't understand her I put her idea in my own words and then asked her if that pretty much summed up her position then she said there is no need to paraphrase etc...

Her position is I do not understand her.

It's mind numbingly simple, I put it in my own words and keep asking her to comment on them.

She will not. She keeps pointing and quoting other things...

Now why won't she comment on my rephrasing...why...why...

Why? She is intellectually dishonest.
She spins ridiculous circles instead of just dealing with the substance, which I threw back, mirroring what she was doing by saying and positing equally slippery dubious absurdities.

Do you agree with her? I do. But she will not accept this OR engage with my re-phrasing.

She says : "You tried paraphrasing me earlier, too, and that did not work"

She won't even comment on it!!!

She even says several times I "have ducked the challenge"
even though I keep saying I can not meet the challenge !!!!!!

Then I distort her words slightly and she jumps all over it - see this fib and that fib?!

Uh, yes. I was parodying the exact things she has been doing. My point -she is not honestly interested in a intellectual conversation.
She herself will not engage my paraphrase but instead harps on the counting, she herself will keep accusing me of not meeting the challenge EVEN AFTER I say that I cannot and agree with her!

So, then why argue? My hypothesis is that it is a pathology.

SPEAKING of ignoring peoples points...in our previous conversations the other gentleman admitted his morals were Kantian. That they then therefore had a basis not in materialism but metaphysics, and further he objected to the Christian god on moral grounds, not rational.

Have you figured out where yours come from yet?

spiltteeth

28th August 2009, 03:34

Also, I understand why Rosa would -indeed must- respond to my silliness, she is compelled to.

But good lord man...you?

And if you study how Rosa interacts with people it is only rarley for reasons of intellectual discusion. It is pathological and you can see -look at this thread- how it colors her thoughts and perverts her otherwise fine arguments.

spiltteeth

28th August 2009, 04:18

Ah, after thinking about it I guess I could also be accused of intellectual dishonesty, For you, Hyacinth, here is what I think, in the way Rosa is setting up things, she’s right. BUT I could say the same thing about matter and energy. It is possible to make meaningful statements about matter and energy, and test them, though it remains impossible to define them without referencing them. We might say that matter is what possesses inertia, but inertia is defined in terms of matter.

Now whether you can make meaningful statements about the triune Christian god and test them is an ENTIRELY different discussion all together.

However I think Rosa is wrong to assume relational attributes to be less real than primary attributes. I disagree with the parameters of her investigation. Relation is the primary attribute of any thing - on two levels, 1/ we cannot understand any meaning of a thing except by way of our relationship to the thing and/or the things relationship to other things and 2/ No thing exists in the cosmos except by way of relationship. Even matter itself only exists as the relationship between sub-atomic particles. Knowledge of matter itself is an illusion or an assumption (or non-cognition) based only on perception of relational attributes.

God is not a thing but is the relationship that gives meaning to all things.

The people of the bible were told to only worship the God of Israel and no other Gods. This is not because the biblical god is a better god than the others but because the biblical god is in a completely different dimension to the personified pagan gods who have a name, a personality and in many cases a body. The biblical god has no name, Moses is told to call god "I am". God is not to be worshiped by way of symbols of the personality such as pagan idols but rather by engagement in relationship - relationship to the land such as the covenant of Abraham and relationship to the people such as the covenant of Moses and the fulfillment of both under foreign domination such as the covenant of Jesus.

When we exist in relationship that relationship, or god, manifests in us. The relationship gives us meaning. 2 or 3 are gathered in his name (I am) - is both the nature and primary attribute of God.
Hence why I referenced the book “BEING AS COMMUNION,” mentioned God’s triune nature – even He can exist only as a community (ie relationally) Heidegger’s notion of subjectivity, and Hegel’s notion of person-hood –that we exist in each other etc

Incidentally, the Roman church after Constantine abandoned the biblical god and invented a personified thing in the tradition of the pagan gods.

Now, I think this is a perfectly reasonable rebuttal. But is it a massive devastating refutation? No. She could argue certain things back, and I'm sure she knows how I would respond, and the argument would go on and on becoming ever more esoteric.
But for your information I think I've laid out my basic position as clear as I can, and so has she. Neither of ours is original or new.
It's ooooooooooooooooooold hat.

Hyacinth

28th August 2009, 06:29

SPEAKING of ignoring peoples points...in our previous conversations the other gentleman admitted his morals were Kantian. That they then therefore had a basis not in materialism but metaphysics, and further he objected to the Christian god on moral grounds, not rational.
Except I still fail to see the alleged analogy between ethics and religion. And, given that the thread was about religion, it would be off topic for me to engage in a discussion about metaethics.

What exactly is the metaphysical basis of Kantian ethics?

Have you figured out where yours come from yet?
As I already told you, qua ethics I'm a Humean. Meaning, roughly, that ultimately ethics just boils down to sentiments, desires, preferences, etc. So, and while this is not the way I would phrase it, ethics comes from our desires (broadly construed).

Hyacinth

28th August 2009, 06:32

God is not a thing but is the relationship that gives meaning to all things.
All well and good, except you have to tell us what you mean by "meaning" in this sentence, since it clearly doesn't have the same sense as our ordinary use of it. For one thing, things don't have a meaning in the ordinary sense. It would be quite strange to ask "What is the meaning of this chair?".

Until you tell us what you mean by 'meaning' it remains just yet another empty term.

spiltteeth

28th August 2009, 06:54

Except I still fail to see the alleged analogy between ethics and religion. And, given that the thread was about religion, it would be off topic for me to engage in a discussion about metaethics.

What exactly is the metaphysical basis of Kantian ethics?

As I already told you, qua ethics I'm a Humean. Meaning, roughly, that ultimately ethics just boils down to sentiments, desires, preferences, etc. So, and while this is not the way I would phrase it, ethics comes from our desires (broadly construed).

Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God. The idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view";""One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose"

Thats fine if those are your ethics. So if I so desired and preferred to slice up a small child and sodomize him this is all well and dandy. However a materialist/Marxist view is that morals, really more ethics (AND religion/belief in god), are largely the consequence of the type of society we live in. So in one society masturbating or cannibalism is "wrong" and in another it might be encouraged. But if we can mature we can see these things for what they are - mere social constructs, and throw them off if we so choose.
You do not hold to Marxist/materialist morals but are an idealist.
Likewise, I do not apply Marxism/materialism to my belief in god.

spiltteeth

28th August 2009, 07:12

All well and good, except you have to tell us what you mean by "meaning" in this sentence, since it clearly doesn't have the same sense as our ordinary use of it. For one thing, things don't have a meaning in the ordinary sense. It would be quite strange to ask "What is the meaning of this chair?".

Until you tell us what you mean by 'meaning' it remains just yet another empty term.

Well, as you know by now Rosa has a terrible counting problem. Thing is she can't count or understand simple english. You can go back and look yourself.

This is her original statement. :

"Quote:
(1) Personal Significance: as in "His Teddy Bear means a lot to him."

(2) Evaluative import: as in "May Day means different things to different classes."

(3) Point or purpose: as in "Life has no meaning."

(4) Linguistic meaning: as in "'Vixen' means 'female fox'", "'Chien' means 'dog'", or "Recidivist" means someone who has resumed their criminal career.

(5) Aim or intention: as in "They mean to win this strike."

(6) Implication: as in "Winning this dispute means that management won't try another wage cut again in a hurry."

(7) Indicate, point to, or presage: as in "Those clouds mean rain", or "Those spots mean you have measles."

(8) Reference: as in "I meant him over there", or "'The current president of the USA' means somebody different at least once every eight years."

(9) Artistic or literary import: as in "The meaning of this novel is to examine political integrity."

(10) An indication of conversational focus: as in "I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% rise in the first place?"

(11) An expression of sincerity or determination: as in "I mean it, I really do want to go on the march!", or "The demonstrators really mean to stop this war."

(12) The content of a message, or the import of a sign: as in "It means the strike starts on Monday", or "It means you have to queue here."

(13) Interpretation: as in "You will need to read the author's novels if you want to give a new meaning to her latest play", or "That gesture means those pickets think you are a scab."

(14) Import or significance: as in "Part of the meaning of this play is to change our view of drama", or "The real meaning of the agreement is that the bosses have at last learnt their lesson."

(15) Speakers' meaning: as in "When you trod on her foot and she said 'Well done!' she in fact meant the exact opposite."

(16) Communicative meaning: as in "You get my meaning", or "My last letter should tell you what I meant", or "We have just broken their secret code; the last message meant this..."

(17) Explanation: as in "When the comrade said the strike isn't over what she meant was that we can still win!"

Then she said :

"You mean (as in 'intend') perhaps (1), or, maybe (2), whereas I mean (as in 'intend') (4) and sometimes (6).

I do not deny theological language has a meaning in sense (1) or (2), but I deny it has a meaning in sense (4), or (6)."

It was only LATER that she added 8 and then, with her intellectual dishonesty, accused me of miscounting...

Anywho, as does Rosa, "I mean (as in 'intend') (4) and sometimes (6)."

And, even if you ignore what I've written about God being a relationship, if 'god' would be an empty term then in the exact same way 'matter' and 'energy' are also empty 'meaningless' terms, as I've already pointed out.

Hyacinth

28th August 2009, 09:16

Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God. The idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view";""One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose.
I'm not about to engage in Kant exegesis, but none of this is actually required for perfect duty, the categorical imperative, and all that. Even if Kant invoked god, contemporary Kantians do not. Don't take this as an endorsement of Kantian ethics, there's plenty wrong with it, but the invocation of god isn't one of them.

Hyacinth

28th August 2009, 09:23

[I]f 'god' would be an empty term then in the exact same way 'matter' and 'energy' are also empty 'meaningless' terms, as I've already pointed out.
Setting aside for a moment that matter and energy are definable independently of each other, and it is only in contemporary physical theories where there is an equivalence between the two, there is still a relevant difference between the technical terms of science and empty metaphysical terms. Technical scientific terms can be operationalized, and are employed within theories to make predictions about the world, in contrast with empty metaphysical terms, which, even if they can be given some impredicative definition with some metaphysical system, are not operationalizable, and say nothing about the world.

Hyacinth

28th August 2009, 09:25

You do not hold to Marxist/materialist morals but are an idealist.
Likewise, I do not apply Marxism/materialism to my belief in god.
Quite the contrary. I think a Humean conception of morality fits perfectly with Marxism, inasmuch as we can appeal to a materialist explanation to account for why we have the desires (broadly construed) that we do, and hence, by extension, the ethics that we do. Where is the idealism in that?

black magick hustla

28th August 2009, 12:19

Rosa, "god" is not necessarily an empty word. Carnap makes a distinction, for example, between the "theological" god and the "mythical god". Certainly, the mythical god is not nonsensical - it is a rough attempt at "science". For example, The idea that there is Zeus throwing lightning from some far away place is false but not nonsensical. However the idea that "God is love" is. The Christian God has a bit of both, the mythical aspect being false and the theological one nonsensical. Nonsensical is not necessarily "empty" though - certainly poetry is not "empty", nor literature is or other sorts of "beautiful" nonsense.

I think religious propositions occupy the same cognitive space than ethical/aestheticall propositions. Its something some people feel but cannot utter in words (well they can but those words only say something about the psychology of someone, not anything sensible by themselves). But it is defnitely something that is not "empty", in the same sense that an emotional speech on working class revolution might be full of nonsensical propositions but they are not "empty".

Zolken

28th August 2009, 14:07

There is nothing scientific about investigating ghosts in the attic.

Invader Zim

28th August 2009, 15:53

Did Boudica exist?

The Feral Underclass

28th August 2009, 16:17

Did Boudica exist?

Why do you ask? Surely there's evidence that she existed?

Invader Zim

28th August 2009, 16:50

Why do you ask? Surely there's evidence that she existed?

About as much as there is for Jesus. What we know about Boudica comes from Tacitus's work Agricola, a biography of his father-in-law who Tacitus tells us faught Boudica. As such neither appear in any written source penned during their lifetime (the first references to Jesus appears in works a few decades after his death the same can be said of Boudica who died around 60 A.D., Tacitus wrote Agricola in 98 A.D.). In both cases these documents were written by individuals who didn't personally know the figure described.

ComradeOm

28th August 2009, 17:26

About as much as there is for Jesus. What we know about Boudica comes from Tacitus's work Agricola, a biography of his father-in-law who Tacitus tells us faught Boudica. As such neither appear in any written source penned during their lifetime (the first references to Jesus appears in works a few decades after his death the same can be said of Boudica who died around 60 A.D., Tacitus wrote Agricola in 98 A.D.). In both cases these documents were written by individuals who didn't personally know the figure described.Except that Tacitus's account of the rebellion has been corroborated to a degree by archaeological evidence. Such as the razing of Camulodunum, for example, for which we have a thick and distinctive layer of burned material that can be dated to that period. So we know that there was certainly a major revolt of some sort in England around the years 60-61. As far as I'm aware nobody has yet found the tomb of Jesus

Which is not to say that many of the details of Boudica herself, including her existence, should not be subjected to critical analysis. It should be noted however that Tacitus was drawing on an eyewitness account for this particular history

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2009, 17:59

Dada:

Rosa, "god" is not necessarily an empty word. Carnap makes a distinction, for example, between the "theological" god and the "mythical god". Certainly, the mythical god is not nonsensical - it is a rough attempt at "science". For example, The idea that there is Zeus throwing lightning from some far away place is false but not nonsensical. However the idea that "God is love" is. The Christian God has a bit of both, the mythical aspect being false and the theological one nonsensical. Nonsensical is not necessarily "empty" though - certainly poetry is not "empty", nor literature is or other sorts of "beautiful" nonsense.

Where did I say this word is 'nonsensical'? In an earlier post, I gave several meanings of "meaning", and invited Christians to tell us in what sense "god" had a meaning.

It turns out that it has only a personal, idiosyncratic meaning for each of them (a bit like, "My teddy bear means a lot to me"), but not one that refers to anything in relation to which we can attribute any content at all. And this is on their own admission; I quoted the Book of Isaiah to that effect. So, they haven't a clue what "god" refers to, nor about what they are speaking when they talk about 'him'; and neither has anyone else.

So, Carnap's comments are not at all relevant.

I think religious propositions occupy the same cognitive space than ethical/aestheticall propositions. Its something some people feel but cannot utter in words (well they can but those words only say something about the psychology of someone, not anything sensible by themselves). But it is defnitely something that is not "empty", in the same sense that an emotional speech on working class revolution might be full of nonsensical propositions but they are not "empty".

Well, it's an empty word in the sense that believers cannot tell us what the dickens they are banging on about when they use it without using yet more equally empty terms.

And 'God is love' is a joke; are we really expected to believe that 'god' is what an abstract noun depicts.

But, even if we are supposed to believe this, the sentence "God is love" is devoid of sense since it contains an empty word, "god".

We have absolutely no idea what is supposed to be love, and neither have they.

For all, the good it does, they might as well say "Schmod is love".

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2009, 18:06

Spiltteeth:

Actually its a pun. I keep using them and as the treads' gone on I keep trying to make them more and more obvious. Waving your dick about? I'm saying you are engaged in a fetishistic psycho-sexual drama : "Phallus -see"

Yes, I got that point, just as I saw it as yet another smokescreen.

You : Stop using ploys.
Me : I agree with you, I can't meet your challenge. But, there's a book that shows how your wrong in a deeper sense...
You : I WILL NOT READ IT! Another ploy to rob me of my precious juices! Put me in my place! C'mon, give it to me! Make it hurt etc

And what 'book' is this. The one by that Nazi?

And so goes Rosa, ignorant of all the little jokes and double meanings that have gone soaring over her head, terrified of the "ploy" of suggesting a book that explains and articulates better than I am able to the point I'm trying to make (you yourself have described my writing as drunken, so I offer a book...) and down she spirals in fetishistic panic, binding the anxiety of the child hood trauma that such knowledge may return to her in symptomatic form...run Rosa...the ghostly ploys are gaining on you...Korzboyski and Linguistics are the devil! Do not read...if 'they' can't put you in your place than nothing ever happened all those years ago...If you don't know somthing then it can't matter, it can't possibley matter...how could it? It can't...math no!!!

The bottom line of this is that you can't answer my arguments, but must resort to personal attacks once more.

And, I think we all know why...

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2009, 18:43

Spiltteeth:

Secondly, I have literally quoted her and the said, that is correct, then she said that because of my counting problems I can't understand her I put her idea in my own words and then asked her if that pretty much summed up her position then she said there is no need to paraphrase etc...

Her position is I do not understand her.

It's not me you fail to understand, but simple English sentences, and I rather suspect that this is deliberate, since it's all part of the elaborate smokescreen you are throwing up -- which isn't working anyway.

She keeps pointing and quoting other things...

What 'other things' do I quote, except you?

Now why won't she comment on my rephrasing...why...why...

Why? She is intellectually dishonest.

I did comment on it, to point out that it did not express my views, and that being the case I had nothing further to say -- except that you should focus on what I actually say, not on what you think I said, or on what you think you can make me say.

And, what I have said in this thread has been expressed in simple English. Your failure to grasp it suggests either that 1) You can't respond effectively (except to raise yet another smokescreen), or that 2) You are too dim to get the point.

She spins ridiculous circles instead of just dealing with the substance, which I threw back, mirroring what she was doing by saying and positing equally slippery dubious absurdities.

What 'circles' have I spun in? You do not say; which is why I alleged earlier that you are good at making accusations, not too good at backing them up.

So, here we see yet more confirmation of this criticism of you.

She even says several times I "have ducked the challenge"
even though I keep saying I can not meet the challenge !!!!!!

And, you ducked it precisely because you couldn't meet it, preferring this elaborate smokescreen instead.

And if you study how Rosa interacts with people it is only rarely for reasons of intellectual discussion. It is pathological and you can see -look at this thread- how it colors her thoughts and perverts her otherwise fine arguments.

Yet more accusations backed up by nothing at all.

You are the 'pathological' one, sunshine.

BUT I could say the same thing about matter and energy. It is possible to make meaningful statements about matter and energy, and test them, though it remains impossible to define them without referencing them. We might say that matter is what possesses inertia, but inertia is defined in terms of matter.

What has this got to do with anything I, or anyone else has said in this thread?

And why do you continue to mention definitions? Only you seem to be fixated on them.

I have already pointed out that a definition of 'god' will be of no use at all, since that definition (unless it is stipulative) will contain an empty word, namely "god", so we would still have no idea what was being defined.

And even a stipulative definition would be no use, since it would be defining this new term "god(1)" not "god".

This is the unique bind all theists find themselves in (no other words face this intractable obstacle; all theological words do) -- not even such believers can tell us, or one another, what they are banging on about when they mouth these words -- and that is why you are thrashing about trying to throw this smokescreen up.

However I think Rosa is wrong to assume relational attributes to be less real than primary attributes. I disagree with the parameters of her investigation. Relation is the primary attribute of any thing - on two levels, 1/ we cannot understand any meaning of a thing except by way of our relationship to the thing and/or the things relationship to other things and 2/ No thing exists in the cosmos except by way of relationship. Even matter itself only exists as the relationship between sub-atomic particles. Knowledge of matter itself is an illusion or an assumption (or non-cognition) based only on perception of relational attributes.

And where did you get this odd idea from, that I think "relational attributes to be less real than primary attributes"? Not from anything I have said, nor implied.

Clearly you think that if you tell enough lies, your 'case' will stand.

[Let me remind you who the alleged 'father of the lie' is supposed to be, and where the New Testament says all you liars will end up.]

God is not a thing but is the relationship that gives meaning to all things.

But this sentence is devoid of content, since, once more, it contains an empty term: "god". Not even you can tell us what this empty word means. Goodness knows, you have been asked often enough.

But, as we know, you prefer to throw up an elaborate smokescreen.

The people of the bible were told to only worship the God of Israel and no other Gods. This is not because the biblical god is a better god than the others but because the biblical god is in a completely different dimension to the personified pagan gods who have a name, a personality and in many cases a body. The biblical god has no name, Moses is told to call god "I am". God is not to be worshiped by way of symbols of the personality such as pagan idols but rather by engagement in relationship - relationship to the land such as the covenant of Abraham and relationship to the people such as the covenant of Moses and the fulfilment of both under foreign domination such as the covenant of Jesus.

When we exist in relationship that relationship, or god, manifests in us. The relationship gives us meaning. 2 or 3 are gathered in his name (I am) - is both the nature and primary attribute of God.

Hence why I referenced the book “BEING AS COMMUNION,” mentioned God’s triune nature -- even He can exist only as a community (ie relationally) Heidegger’s notion of subjectivity, and Hegel's notion of person-hood -- that we exist in each other etc

Incidentally, the Roman church after Constantine abandoned the biblical god and invented a personified thing in the tradition of the pagan gods.

Now, I think this is a perfectly reasonable rebuttal. But is it a massive devastating refutation? No. She could argue certain things back, and I'm sure she knows how I would respond, and the argument would go on and on becoming ever more esoteric.
But for your information I think I've laid out my basic position as clear as I can, and so has she. Neither of ours is original or new.
It's ooooooooooooooooooold hat.

But, you won't argue -- you have taken your mystical bat home, preferring to lie about me and my beliefs to a third party.

Then she said :

"You mean (as in 'intend') perhaps (1), or, maybe (2), whereas I mean (as in 'intend') (4) and sometimes (6).

I do not deny theological language has a meaning in sense (1) or (2), but I deny it has a meaning in sense (4), or (6)."

It was only LATER that she added 8 and then, with her intellectual dishonesty, accused me of miscounting...

Anywho, as does Rosa, "I mean (as in 'intend') (4) and sometimes (6)."

And, even if you ignore what I've written about God being a relationship, if 'god' would be an empty term then in the exact same way 'matter' and 'energy' are also empty 'meaningless' terms, as I've already pointed out.

I added this is a later edit, but that edit was posted only a few seconds after the original post. You leapt in and commented on a post before I had finished proof reading it. So, you have only yourself to blame.

And, you can't tell us what you mean in senses (4) or (6) without using yet more empty words. The whole collection of theological words forms a self-referential set of empty terms.

spiltteeth

28th August 2009, 18:54

I'm not about to engage in Kant exegesis, but none of this is actually required for perfect duty, the categorical imperative, and all that. Even if Kant invoked god, contemporary Kantians do not. Don't take this as an endorsement of Kantian ethics, there's plenty wrong with it, but the invocation of god isn't one of them.

Really its an evocation of 'god' only as a practical measure, the point is that it involves metaphysical a priori absolutes.

Invader Zim

28th August 2009, 18:56

Except that Tacitus's account of the rebellion has been corroborated to a degree by archaeological evidence. Such as the razing of Camulodunum, for example, for which we have a thick and distinctive layer of burned material that can be dated to that period. So we know that there was certainly a major revolt of some sort in England around the years 60-61. As far as I'm aware nobody has yet found the tomb of Jesus

Which is not to say that many of the details of Boudica herself, including her existence, should not be subjected to critical analysis. It should be noted however that Tacitus was drawing on an eyewitness account for this particular history

Except that Tacitus's account of the rebellion has been corroborated to a degree by archaeological evidence.

Firstly this stikes me as a somewhat fallicious argument, just because one part of an account is accurate does not imply that the rest is. Secondly elements of the New Testiment have also been confirmed by other sources including archeological evidence. For example, Caiaphas who was named in the Bible as the High Priest also appears in Josephus's work. And in 1990 Caiaphas's grave was unearthed. Does this, therefore, imply that the rest of Matthew and John, both of whom discuss Caiaphus, are trust worthy?

It should be noted however that Tacitus was drawing on an eyewitness account for this particular history

But of course, this would be dismissed as hear-say a rather bizarre perjorative for secondary literature. Furthermore Christians would have us believe the gospels are also secondary sources. The gospel of Mark, for example, is traditionally attributed to Mark the Evangelist a disiple of Peter. Furthermore 'Luke' informs us that his gospel is the product compiling first hand accounts in order to provide a coherant history of events:

"1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

Luke 1:1-4

spiltteeth

28th August 2009, 18:56

Setting aside for a moment that matter and energy are definable independently of each other, and it is only in contemporary physical theories where there is an equivalence between the two, there is still a relevant difference between the technical terms of science and empty metaphysical terms. Technical scientific terms can be operationalized, and are employed within theories to make predictions about the world, in contrast with empty metaphysical terms, which, even if they can be given some impredicative definition with some metaphysical system, are not operationalizable, and say nothing about the world.

Thats a separate issue entirely, if you want to talk about this just let me know.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2009, 19:05

^^^As I said, you have taken your mystical bat home since you can't defend your ideas

spiltteeth

28th August 2009, 19:45

Splitter:

It's not me you fail to understand, but simple English sentences, and I rather suspect that this is deliberate, since it's all part of the elaborate smokescreen you are throwing up -- which isn't working anyway.

What 'other things' do I quote, except you?

I did comment on it, to point out that it did not express my views, and that being the case I had nothing further to say -- except that you should focus on what I actually say, not on what you think I said, or on what you think you can make me say.

And, what I have said in this thread has been expressed in simple English. Your failure to grasp it suggests either that 1) You can't respond effectively (except to raise yet another smokescreen), or that 2) You are too dim to get the point.

What 'circles' have I spun in? You do not say; which is why I alleged earlier that you are good at making accusations, not too good at backing them up.

So, here we see yet more confirmation of this criticism of you.

And, you ducked it precisely because you couldn't meet it, preferring this elaborate smokescreen instead.

Yet more accusations backed up by nothing at all.

You are the 'pathological' one, sunshine.

What has this got to do with anything I, or anyone else has said in this thread?

And why do you continue to mention definitions? Only you seem to be fixated on them.

I have already pointed out that a definition of 'god' will be of no use at all, since that definition (unless it is stipulative) will contain an empty word, namely "god", so we would still have no idea what was being defined.

And even a stipulative definition would be no use, since it would be defining this new term "god(1)" not "god".

This is the unique bind all theists find themselves in (no other words face this intractable obstacle; all theological words do) -- not even such believers can tell us, or one another, what they are banging on about when they mouth these words -- and that is why you are thrashing about trying to throw this smokescreen up.

And where did you get this odd idea from, that I think "relational attributes to be less real than primary attributes"? Not from anything I have said, nor implied.

Clearly you think that if you tell enough lies, your 'case' will stand.

[Let me remind you who the alleged 'father of the lie' is supposed to be, and where the New Testament says all you liars will end up.]

But this sentence is devoid of content, since, once more, it contains an empty term: "god". Not even you can tell us what this empty word means. Goodness knows, you have been asked often enough.

But, as we know, you prefer to throw up an elaborate smokescreen.

But, you won't argue -- you have taken your mystical bat home, preferring to lie about me and my beliefs to a third party.

I added this is a later edit, but that edit was posted only a few seconds after the original post. You leapt in and commented on a post before I had finished proof reading it. So, you have only yourself to blame.

And, you can't tell us what you mean in senses (4) or (6) without using yet more empty words. The whole collection of theological words forms a self-referential set of empty terms.

I'm sure you know what you wrote is mostly bull shit, I asked you to comment on my paraphrase and point out how I was wrong, pretty simple, you haven't. If you think I don't understand you then why in the world would you respond to what I'm saying?

Well I just checked it and your original post still only has 2, no edit and no # 8 added, so lie?
Shall I heap abuse on you now for this? Say that this proves your memory is terrible and you don't know English ect ect or shall I have a tidbit of intellectual integrity and just assume you made a small error?

You must have an unusual definition of 'ducking' since I've answered that I can't strait out.
Obviously, the question you would have to ask, which you know but lets keep jerking off, is what do I mean by god in relation to what. It only remains empty in a non-relational sense.
Your accusation would have to be, you can't tell us what god means in relation to X etc

My answer? Here : God is not an object, so much of your criteria do not apply. Your proposition don't make no darn sense. God is a dynamic relationship. It is a relationship that gives meaning.

Now which is the empty term? Relationship? Gives? Meaning? Since we are talking relational attributes, which are just as real as primary correct? then you would need at least a second term so just saying 'god' is the empty term does not make sense.
Hint : a relationship involves more than one thing.
This is like talking to may 6 yr old niece.

Hmmmm...will this necessarily lead into considerations of how meaning is generated? Nah.

I assume you know your argument is called something like ignosisism, or something like that if I recall. So you know the arguments for and against it but lets keep it up.

Smokescreen eh? So what about matter and inertia?
Your answer :

"What has this got to do with anything I, or anyone else has said in this thread?"

I'm saying matter and energy are also empty terms, according to your criteria, but they can be defined by relational attributes just like 'god' so we are able to use 'god' and 'energy' and 'matter' in a meaningful way in a sentence. Now unless your brain damaged you know thats what I'm saying, but you need things spelled out. Why? I have some baseless suggestions that I'm sure you can guess...
Am I wrong? They also cannot be defined because it would have the empty term matter and energy. Correct?

"And why do you continue to mention definitions? Only you seem to be fixated on them.

I have already pointed out that a definition of 'god' will be of no use at all, since that definition (unless it is stipulative) will contain an empty word, namely "god", so we would still have no idea what was being defined."

Uh, yea, just like energy and matter...unless we are talking about relational attributes!
Must I draw out a map and connect the dots?

Let's next discuss how all colors are empty terms too! So if a sentence has the word blue in it etc
Like fucking a cheese grater, painful with such little payoff..

ComradeOm

28th August 2009, 19:53

Firstly this stikes me as a somewhat fallicious argument, just because one part of an account is accurate does not imply that the rest is. Secondly elements of the New Testiment have also been confirmed by other sources including archeological evidence. For example, Caiaphas who was named in the Bible as the High Priest also appears in Josephus's work. And in 1990 Caiaphas's grave was unearthed. Does this, therefore, imply that the rest of Matthew and John, both of whom discuss Caiaphus, are trust worthy?Of course not but these are completely different circumstances. We know that most of the actual events that Tacitus describes occurred. They happened and can be traced by archaeological evidence. There is no where near the same degree of corroboration for the Gospels. That Caiaphas existed has no bearing whatsoever on whether Jesus did as well

In contrast, we know that there was an major revolt in England in this period. We know that it occurred in the areas/towns described by Tacitus. His account is certainly accurate in the major details of the campaigns. Again, this does not mean that questions should not be raised as to the existence of Boudica, which is right if her existence cannot be conclusively proven, but given the accuracy of his account of 60-61 I see little reason to do so

But of course, this would be dismissed as hear-say a rather bizarre perjorative for secondary literature. Furthermore Christians would have us believe the gospels are also secondary sources. The gospel of Mark, for example, is traditionally attributed to Mark the Evangelist a disiple of Peter. Furthermore 'Luke' informs us that his gospel is the product compiling first hand accounts in order to provide a coherant history of eventsI was drawing a comparison with Tacitus's mention of Jesus. Is the reference from Julius Agricola conclusive evidence as to the existence of Boudica? Of course not. He was however an officer involved in the events of 60-61 and provided most of the detail (subsequently proven correct, see above) for Tacitus's work. He's a primary source, the sort missing from ancient histories of Jesus, unless of course you think Tacitus simply made him up?

And frankly I don't see the merit in using the gospels as historical evidence. I'm sure you're aware as to the convoluted processes by which the 'finished product' was arrived at. Their historical integrity is extremely limited at best

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2009, 22:37

Spiltteeth:

I'm sure you know what you wrote is mostly bull shit,

Only the when I quote you.

I asked you to comment on my paraphrase and point out how I was wrong, pretty simple, you haven't. If you think I don't understand you then why in the world would you respond to what I'm saying?

As I have told you several times, and as you know, I did comment on that paraphrase, and told you it did not represent my views, and so, as a result, I would comment no further on opinions that were not my own. Why on earth do you imagine I would?

But, I note that once again you prefer not to respond to what I actually posted, choosing instead to fixate on your own erroneous summary of my views, thus throwing up yet another smokescreen.

Well I just checked it and your original post still only has 2, no edit and no # 8 added, so lie?
Shall I heap abuse on you now for this? Say that this proves your memory is terrible and you don't know English ect ect or shall I have a tidbit of intellectual integrity and just assume you made a small error?

I have already responded to this exaggeration; here it is again (I know you struggle with plain English, but give it a go):

I added this is a later edit, but that edit was posted only a few seconds after the original post. You leapt in and commented on a post before I had finished proof reading it. So, you have only yourself to blame.

Spiltteeth:

You must have an unusual definition of 'ducking' since I've answered that I can't strait out. [Eh??]
Obviously, the question you would have to ask, which you know but lets keep jerking off, is what do I mean by god in relation to what. It only remains empty in a non-relational sense.

You sound like you have had one too many here. Get back to me when you dry out.

Your accusation would have to be, you can't tell us what god means in relation to X etc

My answer? Here : God is not an object, so much of your criteria do not apply. Your proposition don't make no darn sense. God is a dynamic relationship. It is a relationship that gives meaning.

I did not say "you can't tell us what god means in relation to X etc"; I said that you can't tell me, or anyone else, what this empty terms means, period. I did not mention 'in relation to X" or anything else, for that matter.

Once more, you need to concentrate on what I actually say, not what you would like me to have said.

But, we already know that this is just another smokescreen designed to put off the evil day when you have confront the fact that you worship nothing at all, pray to nothing and have a relation with nothing whatsoever, given the fact that you cannot tell us what this empty term means, nor can you tell other believers, nor can you even tell yourself.

Here, we have an alleged 'relation' with nothing at all on the other side -- or nothing you can tell us anything about.

In that case, you cannot have a relation under such circumstances, except with a figment of your own imagination, and a figment you cannot give any content to. So, this figment is much worse/obscure than if you claimed you have a 'relation' with a unicorn.

At least we'd know what you were making up in that case. Here, neither we, nor you, nor anyone else, has clue what you mean when you bang on about: "god".

And this is a predicament from which you cannot ever hope to extricate yourself, no matter how you try. There is nothing with which you can compare 'god', as Isaiah says. So, the Bible condemns you to permanent silence on this -- hence, this is not something I have just dreamt up.

Now which is the empty term? Relationship? Gives? Meaning? Since we are talking relational attributes, which are just as real as primary correct? then you would need at least a second term so just saying 'god' is the empty term does not make sense.
Hint : a relationship involves more than one thing.
This is like talking to may 6 yr old niece.

Well, we'd be more impressed with these 'relational attributes' if we, or you, had a clue with what it is you are allegedly related.

But, your responses up to now indicate that you cannot tell us what it is you are allegedly related to; even worse, you do not know what you are allegedly related to. So, this 'relation' collapses for want of terms -- there is nothing on the other side of this 'relation'; in which case, this is no more a relation than a one-handed handshake is a handshake.

This is like talking to my 6 yr old niece.

May I suggest then that you learn to construct more sophisticated arguments; you must know that you may be able to con her, but the comrades here are a little more sophisticated.

But you say this:

God is not an object

Then you say:

a relationship involves more than one thing.

So, 'god' is not an 'object', 'he' is a 'thing'...

But, what is the difference between a 'thing' and an 'object'?

And, what sort of 'thing' is 'god'?

Again: deadly silence....

Hmmmm...will this necessarily lead into considerations of how meaning is generated? Nah.

Why are you fixated in this?

I assume you know your argument is called something like ignosisism, or something like that if I recall. So you know the arguments for and against it but lets keep it up.

This definitely indicates you are pissed as a newt, for there is no such thing as "ignosisism", and if that is so, my argument cannot be called this.

This is not even a half-way decent smokescreen; you are clearly running out of ideas and delaying tactics.

Smokescreen eh? So what about matter and inertia?
Your answer :

"What has this got to do with anything I, or anyone else has said in this thread?"

I'm saying matter and energy are also empty terms, according to your criteria, but they can be defined by relational attributes just like 'god' so we are able to use 'god' and 'energy' and 'matter' in a meaningful way in a sentence. Now unless your brain damaged you know thats what I'm saying, but you need things spelled out. Why? I have some baseless suggestions that I'm sure you can guess...
Am I wrong? They also cannot be defined because it would have the empty term matter and energy. Correct?

Once more, this has nothing to do with my argument -- I am in no way committed to such odd ideas about 'matter' and 'energy'.

Again, and for about the hundredth time: you need to concentrate on what I actually say, and not on what you think I might say, might have said, or on what you would like me to have said.

So, yes: smokescreen.

Anyway, we have some idea (and quite a good idea, too) what matter is, or, rather, what material things are. But, we have absolutely no idea what 'god' is. And neither have you.

Uh, yea, just like energy and matter...unless we are talking about relational attributes!
Must I draw out a map and connect the dots?

I don't think you can. I don't think you have a clue, or that you have given this much thought. That is why you are desperately thrashing about for something, anything, to throw at me, no matter how odd, irrelevant or weird.

This is just another sign of how desperate you are: "ignosisism".

You (according to me):

Does it mean anything? Er...I'm not sure. Never mind, lob it at Rosa! It will buy me another few minutes...

See, you are not the only one who can make stuff up -- except mine is probably true.

Let's next discuss how all colors are empty terms too! So if a sentence has the word blue in it etc

Well, colour can't be an empty term, since we can all point to colours, at the least. Can we point to 'god'? We do not even know what we'd be pointing at!

Like fucking a cheese grater, painful with such little payoff..

Yes, and that non-existent plonker, Jesus, would have used such language wouldn't he?

Invader Zim

28th August 2009, 23:56

Of course not but these are completely different circumstances.

Are they? Both are secondary sources, and both contain information confirmed by external literature and archaeological evidence. On that level they have the same plus points going for them.

We know that most of the actual events that Tacitus describes occurred.

We certainly know that certain campaigns and battles occured, but the details beyond the shallowest depth we only have his word for. That includes the existance of Boudica. Indeed in the case of the Bible greater depth of detail, though still very limited, has been proven by archeological findings, i.e the example I provided earlier.

I'll get to the rest of your post in the morning.

spiltteeth

29th August 2009, 04:17

Spiltteeth:

Only the when I quote you.

As I have told you several times, and as you know, I did comment on that paraphrase, and told you it did not represent my views, and so, as a result, I would comment no further on opinions that were not my own. Why on earth do you imagine I would?

But, I note that once again you prefer not to respond to what I actually posted, choosing instead to fixate on your own erroneous summary of my views, thus throwing up yet another smokescreen.

I have already responded to this exaggeration; here it is again (I know you struggle with plain English, but give it a go):

Spiltteeth:

You sound like you have had one too many here. Get back to me when you dry out.

I did not say "you can't tell us what god means in relation to X etc"; I said that you can't tell me, or anyone else, what this empty terms means, period. I did not mention 'in relation to X" or anything else, for that matter.

Once more, you need to concentrate on what I actually say, not what you would like me to have said.

But, we already know that this is just another smokescreen designed to put off the evil day when you have confront the fact that you worship nothing at all, pray to nothing and have a relation with nothing whatsoever, given the fact that you cannot tell us what this empty term means, nor can you tell other believers, nor can you even tell yourself.

Here, we have an alleged 'relation' with nothing at all on the other side -- or nothing you can tell us anything about.

In that case, you cannot have a relation under such circumstances, except with a figment of your own imagination, and a figment you cannot give any content to. So, this figment is much worse/obscure than if you claimed you have a 'relation' with a unicorn.

At least we'd know what you were making up in that case. Here, neither we, nor you, nor anyone else, has clue what you mean when you bang on about: "god".

And this is a predicament from which you cannot ever hope to extricate yourself, no matter how you try. There is nothing with which you can compare 'god', as Isaiah says. So, the Bible condemns you to permanent silence on this -- hence, this is not something I have just dreamt up.

Well, we'd be more impressed with these 'relational attributes' if we, or you, had a clue with what it is you are allegedly related.

But, your responses up to now indicate that you cannot tell us what it is you are allegedly related to; even worse, you do not know what you are allegedly related to. So, this 'relation' collapses for want of terms -- there is nothing on the other side of this 'relation'; in which case, this is no more a relation than a one-handed handshake is a handshake.

May I suggest then that you learn to construct more sophisticated arguments; you must know that you may be able to con her, but the comrades here are a little more sophisticated.

But you say this:

Then you say:

So, 'god' is not an 'object', 'he' is a 'thing'...

But, what is the difference between a 'thing' and an 'object'?

And, what sort of 'thing' is 'god'?

Again: deadly silence....

Why are you fixated in this?

This definitely indicates you are pissed as a newt, for there is no such thing as "ignosisism", and if that is so, my argument cannot be called this.

This is not even a half-way decent smokescreen; you are clearly running out of ideas and delaying tactics.

Once more, this has nothing to do with my argument -- I am in no way committed to such odd ideas about 'matter' and 'energy'.

Again, and for about the hundredth time: you need to concentrate on what I actually say, and not on what you think I might say, might have said, or on what you would like me to have said.

So, yes: smokescreen.

Anyway, we have some idea (and quite a good idea, too) what matter is, or, rather, what material things are. But, we have absolutely no idea what 'god' is. And neither have you.

I don't think you can. I don't think you have a clue, or that you have given this much thought. That is why you are desperately thrashing about for something, anything, to throw at me, no matter how odd, irrelevant or weird.

This is just another sign of how desperate you are: "ignosisism".

You (according to me):

See, you are not the only one who can make stuff up -- except mine is probably true.

Well, colour can't be an empty term, since we can all point to colours, at the least. Can we point to 'god'? We do not even know what we'd be pointing at!

Yes, and that non-existent plonker, Jesus, would have used such language wouldn't he?

"s I have told you several times, and as you know, I did comment on that paraphrase, and told you it did not represent my views, and so, as a result, I would comment no further on opinions that were not my own. Why on earth do you imagine I would?"

I asked you to correct me and tell me how I'm wrong. You've been telling me how I'm wrong in every other way. Please just cut and paste where you did this.

"But, I note that once again you prefer not to respond to what I actually posted, choosing instead to fixate on your own erroneous summary of my views, thus throwing up yet another smokescreen."

Again, if you say my understanding is erroneous...then what merit would such a response have? Yet you will not tell me how I misunderstand you. Just that I do because how could I since I can't count etc

"I have already responded to this exaggeration; here it is again (I know you struggle with plain English, but give it a go):"

Uh, No. As I said the original is STILL there, page 4, and no edit is there, no number 8.
I'll respond to it so it'll appear and save you valuable time.

"Spiltteeth:

You sound like you have had one too many here. Get back to me when you dry out."

Not that your interested in truth but I don't drink or take drugs. Hmm your commenting on my person so I should here post that you are desperate, you draw attention away from what I wrote to my person, a smokescreen etc yes?

"I did not say "you can't tell us what god means in relation to X etc"; I said that you can't tell me, or anyone else, what this empty terms means, period. I did not mention 'in relation to X" or anything else, for that matter.

Once more, you need to concentrate on what I actually say, not what you would like me to have said."

Oh. Thats nice. I never said you did, I said to make sense you would have to, if god is a relationship as I've answered. Please try for extra-crazy next time.
Now I ought to say that see you misread what I was saying so you can't understand anything yes?

"But, we already know that this is just another smokescreen designed to put off the evil day when you have confront the fact that you worship nothing at all, pray to nothing and have a relation with nothing whatsoever, given the fact that you cannot tell us what this empty term means, nor can you tell other believers, nor can you even tell yourself.

Here, we have an alleged 'relation' with nothing at all on the other side -- or nothing you can tell us anything about.

In that case, you cannot have a relation under such circumstances, except with a figment of your own imagination, and a figment you cannot give any content to. So, this figment is much worse/obscure than if you claimed you have a 'relation' with a unicorn.

At least we'd know what you were making up in that case. Here, neither we, nor you, nor anyone else, has clue what you mean when you bang on about: "god"."

Oh. I'll tell you again, the thing that gives meaning to people, not defines things for them of course. Just like no one can say what dark matter is, but we know it exists because of its attributes, gravity etc.

"And this is a predicament from which you cannot ever hope to extricate yourself, no matter how you try. There is nothing with which you can compare 'god', as Isaiah says. So, the Bible condemns you to permanent silence on this -- hence, this is not something I have just dreamt up."

You are now quoting the bible in your defense AND making a theological argument...and I'm the desperate one? Ok.

"Well, we'd be more impressed with these 'relational attributes' if we, or you, had a clue with what it is you are allegedly related."

The thing that makes it possible for/ gives humans meaning, remember?
Now I should cast aspersions on your memory right?

"But, your responses up to now indicate that you cannot tell us what it is you are allegedly related to; even worse, you do not know what you are allegedly related to. So, this 'relation' collapses for want of terms -- there is nothing on the other side of this 'relation'; in which case, this is no more a relation than a one-handed handshake is a handshake."

Oh, I'll keep repeating it. The relationship which I reference as god, although you can call it scmod, that is known by its attributes of giving/making it possible for humans to have meaning.

"May I suggest then that you learn to construct more sophisticated arguments; you must know that you may be able to con her, but the comrades here are a little more sophisticated."

You may.

"But you say this:

Then you say:

So, 'god' is not an 'object', 'he' is a 'thing'...

But, what is the difference between a 'thing' and an 'object'?"

The thing is a relationship, is relational in nature, and not objectively existent as an object separate.

"And, what sort of 'thing' is 'god'?

Again: deadly silence...."

Well, you know my answer. If this is yours...Ok.

"Why are you fixated in this?"
Well, since I've said god is the relationship that allows for meaning to exist I would presume your next question would be, 'what the heck does that mean?' What meaning? How? And then we would have to talk about it.
Guess I'm wrong, apologies.

"This definitely indicates you are pissed as a newt, for there is no such thing as "ignosisism", and if that is so, my argument cannot be called this."

Something like that I said. Ignostisism ? Not that you care for truth, but I don't drink. Here is where I say you make accusations etc ?

"This is not even a half-way decent smokescreen; you are clearly running out of ideas and delaying tactics."
Ok.

"Once more, this has nothing to do with my argument -- I am in no way committed to such odd ideas about 'matter' and 'energy'."

So I'll ask you outright with plain english - is matter and energy an empty term and why or why not?

"Again, and for about the hundredth time: you need to concentrate on what I actually say, and not on what you think I might say, might have said, or on what you would like me to have said."
Thats nice. I never thought you said this.

"So, yes: smokescreen.

Anyway, we have some idea (and quite a good idea, too) what matter is, or, rather, what material things are. But, we have absolutely no idea what 'god' is. And neither have you."

We only have an idea about matter and energy if we involve ourselves in the same type of self-referential loop. I said that already.
Here I ought to say something how you should read better ect ?

"I don't think you can. I don't think you have a clue, or that you have given this much thought. That is why you are desperately thrashing about for something, anything, to throw at me, no matter how odd, irrelevant or weird."

Oh. I don't know why you think that. I keep telling you.

"This is just another sign of how desperate you are: "ignosisism".

You (according to me):

See, you are not the only one who can make stuff up -- except mine is probably true."

You really don't know what I'm talking about? ignosisim? Nothing like that eh? Or is this another desperate ploy-smoke screen!!-and intellectual dishonesty? I'll look it up.

"Well, colour can't be an empty term, since we can all point to colours, at the least. Can we point to 'god'? We do not even know what we'd be pointing at!"

Oh. How would you 'point' to color for a blind person?

"Yes, and that non-existent plonker, Jesus, would have used such language wouldn't he?[/QUOTE]"

Maybe.

spiltteeth

29th August 2009, 04:30

BTB:

This certainly implies it:

if these 'meaningless words' are all taken from theology.

You are running together several distinct meanings of 'meaning':

This is taken from here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

You mean (as in 'intend') perhaps (1), or, maybe (2), whereas I mean (as in 'intend') (4) and sometimes (6).

I do not deny theological language has a meaning in sense (1) or (2), but I deny it has a meaning in sense (4), or (6).

In the end, there is no way of explaining what theological language means without using yet more of such language, which in turn has no way of being explained without..., and so on.

As I said, the entire collection is a self-referential set of meaningless terms.

So, I challenge you, for example, to tell us what the word 'God' means without using yet more empty terms.

Try it -- and I'll show you what I mean (as in 'intend').

You've no room to talk, you do this with words like 'contradiction' and 'negation'.

In contrast, my use of 'meaning' I have explained in non-philosophical terms.

Well, here it is. The original post. No 8. Just 2 not 3.
Not edited...
So now, all those things you said about me apply to you right?

By your own words you are too stupid to understand etc etc etc

Well, if by your own words I guess you can't understand what you wrote since you can't even get this right

Game over I "win"....?

Oh, I looked it up, the argument you are using, but profess ignorance of, is called ' ignostisism'

Now with all that reading of yours you never heard of that huh?
Or when I said it was something like ignosisism you just couldn't put it together that I was talking about 'ignostisism'? IF thats the case it doesn't really speak well to your powers of deduction, to say the least.

If you never heard of the very argument your making when you claim to be well versed in such things...Well...Intellectual dishonesty would be the intelligent conclusion.

spiltteeth

29th August 2009, 04:45

Setting aside for a moment that matter and energy are definable independently of each other, and it is only in contemporary physical theories where there is an equivalence between the two, there is still a relevant difference between the technical terms of science and empty metaphysical terms. Technical scientific terms can be operationalized, and are employed within theories to make predictions about the world, in contrast with empty metaphysical terms, which, even if they can be given some impredicative definition with some metaphysical system, are not operationalizable, and say nothing about the world.

I've heard this before and its a valid criticism.
But, what "empty metaphysical terms" are you referring to?
You've already defined them as 1) Metaphysical and 2) Empty so I'm not sure what exactly your talking about.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2009, 06:10

Spiltteeth:

I asked you to correct me and tell me how I'm wrong. You've been telling me how I'm wrong in every other way. Please just cut and paste where you did this.

I see, you can 'cut and paste' but I can't. Is that it?

Again, if you say my understanding is erroneous...then what merit would such a response have? Yet you will not tell me how I misunderstand you. Just that I do because how could I since I can't count etc

Indeed, there would be no merit in any response to your 'summary', since it summarises none of my beliefs -- and I have directed you to my simple and straightforward English sentences. If they aren't clear enough for you, then there is nothing else I can do to help your slow brain along.

So, once more, and for the 101st time: direct your comments to what I have said not what you would like me to have said.

Or, butt out...

Uh, No. As I said the original is STILL there, page 4, and no edit is there, no number 8.
I'll respond to it so it'll appear and save you valuable time.

Yes, you are right -- my apologies. I added the third option in a later post which I edited along the lines I indicated earlier.

Not that your interested in truth but I don't drink or take drugs. Hmm your commenting on my person so I should here post that you are desperate, you draw attention away from what I wrote to my person, a smokescreen etc yes?

And yet you swear.

Oh. Thats nice. I never said you did, I said to make sense you would have to, if god is a relationship as I've answered. Please try for extra-crazy next time.
Now I ought to say that see you misread what I was saying so you can't understand anything yes?

And once more, you pass-up a golden opportunity to comment on what I have said, instead of what you think you can make me say, and substitute for that yet more delaying tactics.

Oh. I'll tell you again, the thing that gives meaning to people, not defines things for them of course. Just like no one can say what dark matter is, but we know it exists because of its attributes, gravity etc.

But, as we know, figments of the imagination can give meaning to people's lives, except, with the latter we have some idea what they are dreaming up. In your case, no one has an idea what you lot are banging on about, and neither have you.

And, I am not committed to the existence or otherwise of dark matter. And even if I were, we have some idea what it will be like, and what will constitute evidence for its existence. This is not the case with 'god'. No one has the remotest idea what would or could count as 'god', since no one knows the content of this word, least of all you.

Hence your repeated attempts to draw an analogy with scientific concepts cannot work, unless you think that 'god' can be detected with scientific instruments. Is that what you think?

But, even then, since we have absolutely no idea what 'god' is, we do not even know what we would be looking for. The sentence, "Look we have discovered this or that evidence that shows 'god' exists" is devoid of sense, since it contains an empty word, namely "god".

Once more, this is a predicament from which you have no hope of escaping, and neither has anyone else.

You are now quoting the bible in your defense AND making a theological argument...and I'm the desperate one? Ok.

What I am saying is that your own 'holy book' tells you, you cannot ever hope to know what the word 'god' means, or ever hope to form even the remotest inkling as to 'his' alleged nature. This is not my belief, but it should be yours.

The thing that makes it possible for/ gives humans meaning, remember?
Now I should cast aspersions on your memory right?

I think you have forgotten that a word that has no meaning itself cannot possibly give human beings genuine meaning in life -- unless you can tell us what it is that gives you this alleged 'meaning', and what it is that you lot claim to be related to.

That knotty problem you keep dodging -- and we all know why; not even you can tell us, and not even to yourself, what it is that you claim to be related to -- except you use yet another batch of empty words.

Oh, I'll keep repeating it. The relationship which I reference as god, although you can call it scmod, that is known by its attributes of giving/making it possible for humans to have meaning.

But, what you keep dodging is: what precisely is it that you lot claim to be related to.

Now, you can use the word "god" until you are blue in the face, but you might as well use "schmod" (not "scmod" -- you can't even get that right!) for all the good it does. You can't even tell us the difference between 'schmod' and 'god'.

We are no more clear about what 'god' is than we are about what 'schmod' is, and neither are you.

The thing is a relationship, is relational in nature, and not objectively existent as an object separate.

Then it's not a relation, it's an object. Or if it is still a relation, then what stands on either side of that relation? So, on one side stand you believers, but what is on the other side?

Now, either you know and won't say, or you do not know. Which is it?

And if you do not know, then how do you know you aren't related to nothing at all?

Anyway, we can form some idea of nothing at all; but we have absolutely no idea what 'god' is.

So, you'd be better off being related to nothing at all, since at least we'd have some comprehension of what was involved.

But, your predicament is far worse than this: your relation is to something even more obscure than nothing at all; we do not even know if 'it' is a 'something', or which of our words properly apply to it (except we have to use yet more empty words).

And, not even you can help us out here. You are in the dark just as much as us non-believers are.

Well, you know my answer. If this is yours...Ok.

Indeed, we do: you might as well claim to be 'related' to 'schmod' for all the good it does you, or us.

Well, since I've said god is the relationship that allows for meaning to exist I would presume your next question would be, 'what the heck does that mean?' What meaning? How? And then we would have to talk about it.
Guess I'm wrong, apologies.

That means you are related to a relationship, and not to 'god'.

What we still do not know is the nature of the second party to this alleged 'relationship'.

If you can't tell us, then for all you know there is nothing the other side of this 'relation'.

But, as I noted earlier, you'd be better off being related to nothing at all, since at least we'd have some comprehension of what was involved.

But, we still have no idea whatsoever what 'god' is so that you could be related to 'him' -- and neither have you. [Or if you have, then you are being rather coy about it.]

Something like that I said. Ignostisism ? Not that you care for truth, but I don't drink. Here is where I say you make accusations etc ?

Do you mean 'gnosticism' or 'agnosticism'? Which?

I rather suspect that in your panicky state of mind you don't actually mean anything, and that "Ignostisism" means no more to you that "god" does.

So I'll ask you outright with plain english - is matter and energy an empty term and why or why not?

I'd be inclined to give you a clear answer to this if you answered my questions first.

So, this latest attempt to buy time has done you no good at all.

We only have an idea about matter and energy if we involve ourselves in the same type of self-referential loop. I said that already.
Here I ought to say something how you should read better ect ?

Not so, since these concepts are grounded in experience, as I indicated to you; this is not so with 'god'.

But, let is assume you are right, then this amounts to you conceding that theological terms form a self-referential set of empty words, and that you have no idea at all what 'god' means -- except you use yet more empty terms.

Since my argument does not depend on whether or not 'matter' and 'energy' are empty terms, this amounts to a fatal admission on your part.

I don't know why you think that. I keep telling you.

No you don't; you keep ducking the issue. You have yet to tell what you are allegedly related to, for example.

And, I advanced this comment in relation to your use of "Ignostisism", and in connection with this made-up word of yours, by no stretch of the imagination is this the case: "I keep telling you". And we all know why: you dreamt this word up, a word that is as devoid of meaning as "god" is.

And here it is again (except you have now changed it from "Ignostisism" to "ignosisim", and in your next post to "ignosisism" -- you can't even get this fantasy of yours right!)

You really don't know what I'm talking about? ignosisim? Nothing like that eh? Or is this another desperate ploy-smoke screen!!-and intellectual dishonesty? I'll look it up.

I look forward to the results of your research into a word you have just invented.

So, yes, another ploy to gain time, to put off the evil day when you are forced to admit that there is nothing at all on the other side of this alleged 'relationship' of yours.

Oh. How would you 'point' to color for a blind person?

Very easy, you just do it. Now, such a person will not understand what you are on about, but you would, and that is all I need.

So, what can you point to that will help us comprehend "god"?

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2009, 06:15

Spiltteeth:

Oh, I looked it up, the argument you are using, but profess ignorance of, is called ' ignostisism'

Now with all that reading of yours you never heard of that huh?
Or when I said it was something like ignosisism you just couldn't put it together that I was talking about 'ignostisism'? IF thats the case it doesn't really speak well to your powers of deduction, to say the least.

If you never heard of the very argument your making when you claim to be well versed in such things...Well...Intellectual dishonesty would be the intelligent conclusion.

Ok, where did you 'look this up'? And what did this 'source' of yours say?

You claim to have looked up "ignosisism", or is it "ignostisism"...?

Until we see the results, I think healthy scepticism is more than recommended here.

spiltteeth

29th August 2009, 07:32

Spiltteeth:

I see, you can 'cut and paste' but I can't. Is that it?

Indeed, there would be no merit in any response to your 'summary', since it summarises none of my beliefs -- and I have directed you to my simple and straightforward English sentences. If they aren't clear enough for you, then there is nothing else I can do to help your slow brain along.

So, once more, and for the 101st time: direct your comments to what I have said not what you would like me to have said.

Or, butt out...

Yes, you are right -- my apologies. I added the third option in a later post which I edited along the lines I indicated earlier.

And yet you swear.

And once more, you pass-up a golden opportunity to comment on what I have said, instead of what you think you can make me say, and substitute for that yet more delaying tactics.

But, as we know, figments of the imagination can give meaning to people's lives, except, with the latter we have some idea what they are dreaming up. In your case, no one has an idea what you lot are banging on about, and neither have you.

And, I am not committed to the existence or otherwise of dark matter. And even if I were, we have some idea what it will be like, and what will constitute evidence for its existence. This is not the case with 'god'. No one has the remotest idea what would or could count as 'god', since no one knows the content of this word, least of all you.

Hence your repeated attempts to draw an analogy with scientific concepts cannot work, unless you think that 'god' can be detected with scientific instruments. Is that what you think?

But, even then, since we have absolutely no idea what 'god' is, we do not even know what we would be looking for. The sentence, "Look we have discovered this or that evidence that shows 'god' exists" is devoid of sense, since it contains an empty word, namely "god".

Once more, this is a predicament from which you have no hope of escaping, and neither has anyone else.

What I am saying is that your own 'holy book' tells you, you cannot ever hope to know what the word 'god' means, or ever hope to form even the remotest inkling as to 'his' alleged nature. This is not my belief, but it should be yours.

I think you have forgotten that a word that has no meaning itself cannot possibly give human beings genuine meaning in life -- unless you can tell us what it is that gives you this alleged 'meaning', and what it is that you lot claim to be related to.

That knotty problem you keep dodging -- and we all know why; not even you can tell us, and not even to yourself, what it is that you claim to be related to -- except you use yet another batch of empty words.

But, what you keep dodging is: what precisely is it that you lot claim to be related to.

Now, you can use the word "god" until you are blue in the face, but you might as well use "schmod" (not "scmod" -- you can't even get that right!) for all the good it does. You can't even tell us the difference between 'schmod' and 'god'.

We are no more clear about what 'god' is than we are about what 'schmod' is, and neither are you.

Then it's not a relation, it's an object. Or if it is still a relation, then what stands on either side of that relation? So, on one side stand you believers, but what is on the other side?

Now, either you know and won't say, or you do not know. Which is it?

And if you do not know, then how do you know you aren't related to nothing at all?

Anyway, we can form some idea of nothing at all; but we have absolutely no idea what 'god' is.

So, you'd be better off being related to nothing at all, since at least we'd have some comprehension of what was involved.

But, your predicament is far worse than this: your relation is to something even more obscure than nothing at all; we do not even know if 'it' is a 'something', or which of our words properly apply to it (except we have to use yet more empty words).

And, not even you can help us out here. You are in the dark just as much as us non-believers are.

Indeed, we do: you might as well claim to be 'related' to 'schmod' for all the good it does you, or us.

That means you are related to a relationship, and not to 'god'.

What we still do not know is the nature of the second party to this alleged 'relationship'.

If you can't tell us, then for all you know there is nothing the other side of this 'relation'.

But, as I noted earlier, you'd be better off being related to nothing at all, since at least we'd have some comprehension of what was involved.

But, we still have no idea whatsoever what 'god' is so that you could be related to 'him' -- and neither have you. [Or if you have, then you are being rather coy about it.]

Do you mean 'gnosticism' or 'agnosticism'? Which?

I rather suspect that in your panicky state of mind you don't actually mean anything, and that "Ignostisism" means no more to you that "god" does.

I'd be inclined to give you a clear answer to this if you answered my questions first.

So, this latest attempt to buy time has done you no good at all.

Not so, since these concepts are grounded in experience, as I indicated to you; this is not so with 'god'.

But, let is assume you are right, then this amounts to you conceding that theological terms form a self-referential set of empty words, and that you have no idea at all what 'god' means -- except you use yet more empty terms.

Since my argument does not depend on whether or not 'matter' and 'energy' are empty terms, this amounts to a fatal admission on your part.

No you don't; you keep ducking the issue. You have yet to tell what you are allegedly related to, for example.

And, I advanced this comment in relation to your use of "Ignostisism", and in connection with this made-up word of yours, by no stretch of the imagination is this the case: "I keep telling you". And we all know why: you dreamt this word up, a word that is as devoid of meaning as "god" is.

And here it is again (except you have now changed it from "Ignostisism" to "ignosisim", and in your next post to "ignosisism" -- you can't even get this fantasy of yours right!)

I look forward to the results of your research into a word you have just invented.

So, yes, another ploy to gain time, to put off the evil day when you are forced to admit that there is nothing at all on the other side of this alleged 'relationship' of yours.

Very easy, you just do it. Now, such a person will not understand what you are on about, but you would, and that is all I need.

So, what can you point to that will help us comprehend "god"?
I see, you can 'cut and paste' but I can't. Is that it?"

Uh, I'm asking you to. I don't think you did respond. If you did just cut and paste or at least respond and tell me how I'm wrong.

"Indeed, there would be no merit in any response to your 'summary', since it summarizes none of my beliefs -- and I have directed you to my simple and straightforward English sentences. If they aren't clear enough for you, then there is nothing else I can do to help your slow brain along."

No, they are perfectly clear to me. You accused me of not understanding so I paraphrased it, until you comment on why my paraphrase is incorrect I'll go on thinking I understand you. We've been going back and forth on this simple issue. Instead of just answering, or pasting where you did answer, you keep writing things like this...

"So, once more, and for the 101st time: direct your comments to what I have said not what you would like me to have said.

Or, butt out...

Yes, you are right -- my apologies. I added the third option in a later post which I edited along the lines I indicated earlier."

Ok, so. Like I said, does this mean all those things you said about me concerning this now apply to you?

"And yet you swear."

I'll be damed.

"And once more, you pass-up a golden opportunity to comment on what I have said, instead of what you think you can make me say, and substitute for that yet more delaying tactics."

Delaying tactics? I've answered everything best I can.

"But, as we know, figments of the imagination can give meaning to people's lives, except, with the latter we have some idea what they are dreaming up. In your case, no one has an idea what you lot are banging on about, and neither have you."

Well, you don't know what I know. I have an idea. I've told it to you. God is not an object, but a relationship. One that makes meaning possible. If you know something else that makes meaning in the deepest sense possible let me know.

"And, I am not committed to the existence or otherwise of dark matter. And even if I were, we have some idea what it will be like, and what will constitute evidence for its existence. This is not the case with 'god'. No one has the remotest idea what would or could count as 'god', since no one knows the content of this word, least of all you."

Well, dark matter is, likely, an object, so it would have content in a different way - a non-relational way - than a relationship, which has no singular existence outside of interaction, weather we're talking about god or any relationship at all.

"Hence your repeated attempts to draw an analogy with scientific concepts cannot work, unless you think that 'god' can be detected with scientific instruments. Is that what you think?"

No. Just saying content is not applicable.

"But, even then, since we have absolutely no idea what 'god' is, we do not even know what we would be looking for. The sentence, "Look we have discovered this or that evidence that shows 'god' exists" is devoid of sense, since it contains an empty word, namely "god".

God is not an empty sense if we view it relationally, this is kinda my point.

"Once more, this is a predicament from which you have no hope of escaping, and neither has anyone else."

What if you view it by way of relational attributes, like matter and energy?

"What I am saying is that your own 'holy book' tells you, you cannot ever hope to know what the word 'god' means, or ever hope to form even the remotest inkling as to 'his' alleged nature. This is not my belief, but it should be yours."

Thanks for telling me what i should believe. Is this the place where I say
direct your comments to what I have said not what you would like me to have said?

"I think you have forgotten that a word that has no meaning itself cannot possibly give human beings genuine meaning in life -- unless you can tell us what it is that gives you this alleged 'meaning', and what it is that you lot claim to be related to."

Something that gives meaning need not have the properties that enable it to be articulated in order to give meaning.
Is someone not in love unless they can define love?

"That knotty problem you keep dodging -- and we all know why; not even you can tell us, and not even to yourself, what it is that you claim to be related to -- except you use yet another batch of empty words."

ALL of you know why? Uh, yea. Anyway, I claim to be related to other people. My relationship with others gain meaning because of a variety of reasons, what makes it all possible tho is god.

"But, what you keep dodging is: what precisely is it that you lot claim to be related to."

Keep dodging? This is the 1st I've seen the question. Precisely we are related to each other, not in the scientific sense, but in the sense that another person means something to me besides selfish concerns or utilitarian notions, what makes that possible is -you guessed it, god.

"Now, you can use the word "god" until you are blue in the face, but you might as well use "schmod" (not "scmod" -- you can't even get that right!) for all the good it does. You can't even tell us the difference between 'schmod' and 'god'."

Uh, if I call you Risa will that change your nature, or the thing we are talking about. I'm telling you what I'm talking about, and the reference to this relationship is god. Call it scmod, or schmod. I didn't know schmod had a specific meaning for you, or else I would have spelled it correctly? I guess...

"We are no more clear about what 'god' is than we are about what 'schmod' is, and neither are you."

I'm not? Where did I say schmod engenders meaning between people? Really.

"Then it's not a relation, it's an object. Or if it is still a relation, then what stands on either side of that relation? So, on one side stand you believers, but what is on the other side?"
Both sides are people.
"Now, either you know and won't say, or you do not know. Which is it?"
Neither. Both sides are people.
"And if you do not know, then how do you know you aren't related to nothing at all?"
Because meaning exists between people. In fact, it exists in a way that resists symbolization, we could call it the kernel of the real, but that would be misleading, because we can only speak of it in a relational sense.

"Anyway, we can form some idea of nothing at all; but we have absolutely no idea what 'god' is."

Here's an idea : God is a relationship that makes it possible for meaning to exist.

"So, you'd be better off being related to nothing at all, since at least we'd have some comprehension of what was involved.

But, your predicament is far worse than this: your relation is to something even more obscure than nothing at all; we do not even know if 'it' is a 'something', or which of our words properly apply to it (except we have to use yet more empty words)."

Its a relationship between people. Not terribly obscure.

"And, not even you can help us out here. You are in the dark just as much as us non-believers are."

Well, you can't claim I didn't try and help, what with all my answers and all.

"Indeed, we do: you might as well claim to be 'related' to 'schmod' for all the good it does you, or us."

I feel having a meaningful existence does me some good.

"That means you are related to a relationship, and not to 'god'."
Or both.

"What we still do not know is the nature of the second party to this alleged 'relationship'."
The nature of the second party is that they are human. Now we know!

"If you can't tell us, then for all you know there is nothing the other side of this 'relation'."

Pretty big IF...

"But, as I noted earlier, you'd be better off being related to nothing at all, since at least we'd have some comprehension of what was involved."

I have some comprehension. Shall I bow down and snipe that you ought to speak for yourself etc

"But, we still have no idea whatsoever what 'god' is so that you could be related to 'him' -- and neither have you. [Or if you have, then you are being rather coy about it.]"

Hey, I'm doing my best. Never been described as coy before...

"Do you mean 'gnosticism' or 'agnosticism'? Which?"

Neither.

"I rather suspect that in your panicky state of mind you don't actually mean anything, and that "Ignostisism" means no more to you that "god" does."

Such a suspicious mind. And wrong.

"I'd be inclined to give you a clear answer to this if you answered my questions first."
:lol: This is my favorite response ever. OOOO, Rosa's trying to buy time, thats the phrase right? I'll show you mine if you show me yours first...

"So, this latest attempt to buy time has done you no good at all."

I swear I didn't read this before posting the above.

"Not so, since these concepts are grounded in experience, as I indicated to you; this is not so with 'god'.

But, let is assume you are right, then this amounts to you conceding that theological terms form a self-referential set of empty words, and that you have no idea at all what 'god' means -- except you use yet more empty terms."

No need to assume I'm right. Its self evident. I already conceded that. But ONLY on condition that god is an object and not a relationship, which he is.

"Since my argument does not depend on whether or not 'matter' and 'energy' are empty terms, this amounts to a fatal admission on your part."

Fatal. Indeed. So I asked you in plain english. Is this you buying time? Or a smokescreen? Where's your answer. I can't find an answer.

"No you don't; you keep ducking the issue. You have yet to tell what you are allegedly related to, for example."
Person to different person.

"And, I advanced this comment in relation to your use of "Ignostisism", and in connection with this made-up word of yours, by no stretch of the imagination is this the case: "I keep telling you". And we all know why: you dreamt this word up, a word that is as devoid of meaning as "god" is."

I dreamt it up! I'll post some info...

"And here it is again (except you have now changed it from "Ignostisism" to "ignosisim", and in your next post to "ignosisism" -- you can't even get this fantasy of yours right!)"

No, I first said it was something like ignosism, its actually called Ignostisism. Not a fantasy, as I suspect you must know.

"I look forward to the results of your research into a word you have just invented.

So, yes, another ploy to gain time, to put off the evil day when you are forced to admit that there is nothing at all on the other side of this alleged 'relationship' of yours."

Well, I'm sure you know my belief does not rest on this at all. It is based an subjective experience with a bit of empirical data thrown in. It's kinda personal. I've mentioned it to other but I don't think you'd treat it with respect. This is not what we're arguing anyway.

Also, you admit its apply ONLY IF it is my fantasy right? ...

"Very easy, you just do it. Now, such a person will not understand what you are on about, but you would, and that is all I need."

But you said color can't be an empty term. So, if it is not an empty term, not even to a blind person, then why would'nt they understand? Why wouldnt this be a meaningful term ? It's not empty right?

So, what can you point to that will help us comprehend "god"?[/QUOTE]

spiltteeth

29th August 2009, 07:38

Spiltteeth:

Ok, where did you 'look this up'? And what did this 'source' of yours say?

You claim to have looked up "ignosisism", or is it "ignostisism"...?

Until we see the results, I think healthy scepticism is more than recommended here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism :ohmy:
Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.
It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:
The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
The view that is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by God?" before proclaiming that the original question "Does God exist?" is meaningless.
Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.
Contents [hide]
1 Relationship to other views about God
2 Dependence on a particular view concerning the word God
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
[edit]Relationship to other views about God

Ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are generally synonymous,[2] but the relationship of ignosticism to other nontheistic views is less clear. While Paul Kurtz finds the view to be compatible with both weak atheism and agnosticism,[3] other philosophers consider ignosticism to be distinct.
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.[4] Ayer wrote that this ruled out atheism and agnosticism as well as theism because all three positions assume that the sentence "God exists" is meaningful.[5] Given the meaninglessness of theistic claims, Ayer opined that there was "no logical ground for antagonism between religion and natural science",[6] as theism alone does not entail any propositions which the scientific method can falsify.
Like Ayer, Theodore Drange sees atheism and agnosticism as positions which accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition; atheists judge it to be "false or probably false" and agnostics consider it to be inconclusive until further evidence is met.[7] If Drange's definitions are accepted, ignostics are neither atheists nor agnostics. A simplified maxim on the subject states "An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" '."
Ignosticism is not to be confused with apatheism, a position of apathy toward the existence of God. An apatheist may see the statement "God exists" as meaningless, yet they may also see it as meaningful, and perhaps even true.[8]
[edit]Dependence on a particular view concerning the word God

Drange emphasizes that any stance on "Does God exist?" is made with respect to a particular concept of what one claims to consider "God" to represent:
Since the word "God" has many different meanings, it is possible for the sentence "God exists" to express many different propositions. What we need to do is to focus on each proposition separately. … For each different sense of the term "God," there will be theists, atheists, and agnostics relative to that concept of God.[7]
As God means very different things to different people, when the word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended instead. A theistic child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of God.[9] Many philosophers and theologians have rejected this conception of God while affirming belief in another conception of God, including St. Augustine, Maimonides, St. Thomas Aquinas, Baruch Spinoza, and Søren Kierkegaard.

You are most welcome. ;)

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th August 2009, 06:39

^^^I'll reply to you later; I am rather busy at the moment.

spiltteeth

30th August 2009, 22:19

^^^I'll reply to you later; I am rather busy at the moment.

Please define "I".

Please tell me how on would define god without reference to matter, energy, or substance, since these things are also empty terms.

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st August 2009, 08:15

^^^Again, you are fixated on defintions. I have never asked for a definition of 'god', nor would I, and for the reasons I specified.

------------------------

OK, I am now working on a reply to your last two posts but one. It should be ready sometime later today.

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st August 2009, 15:32

Spiltteeth:

No, they are perfectly clear to me. You accused me of not understanding so I paraphrased it, until you comment on why my paraphrase is incorrect I'll go on thinking I understand you. We've been going back and forth on this simple issue. Instead of just answering, or pasting where you did answer, you keep writing things like this...

As I have told you several times: your paraphrase bears no relation to what I am alleging in these posts. What I am alleging has been posted here in plain English sentences; if they are not good enough for you, that is your problem, not mine.

Like I said, does this mean all those things you said about me concerning this now apply to you?

Not at all, since we both misconstrued which post one or the other was referring to.

I'll be dam[n]ed.

According to the New Testament, I think you will.

Delaying tactics? I've answered everything best I can.

On the contrary, you fixate on 'definitions', attempt to paraphrase my words, bang on about the 'generation' of meaning and the alleged 'relationship' you have with something you call "god", but refuse to face the fact that a relationship requires at least two objects/subjects that are so related [on your reply to this, see below], when all you actually have here is one object/subject (you), all the while consistently attributing to me ideas and opinions I do not hold, nor which can reasonably be inferred from what I have said, just as you refuse to tell us, or you cannot tell us, what the term "god" actually means, if anything.

So, this is an elaborate set of delaying tactics, as I said.

Well, you don't know what I know. I have an idea. I've told it to you. God is not an object, but a relationship. One that makes meaning possible. If you know something else that makes meaning in the deepest sense possible let me know.

But 'god' cannot be a relationship, as I noted, otherwise, in order for you to have a relation with 'god' you'd have to have a relation with a relationship. [On your reply to this, too, see below.]

And, if you mean by "relation", or "relationship what we ordinarily mean by these words, then if 'god' is not an object, that must mean that your alleged relation has only one term in it. Hence, if A has a relation with B, we must have at least two individuals/persons/objects so related. But, if it turns out that B does not exist, or is a figment of the imagination, or the alleged name "B" is empty, and no one can tell us what it refers to, if anything, then this putative relation will only have one term in it, and will thus fail to be a relation.

In your case, here "B" is "god"; so unless and until you can tell us what this word refers to (without using yet more empty terms), then the conclusion is plain: you do not in fact have a relation with this non-object you call "god", but with a figment of your imagination -- except, if this were a figment of your imagination, we'd have some idea what you were banging on about.

Here we plainly do not, and neither do you.

Or, if you do, you are keeping it remarkably well hidden.

Well, dark matter is, likely, an object, so it would have content in a different way - a non-relational way - than a relationship, which has no singular existence outside of interaction, weather we're talking about god or any relationship at all.

Once more, this is part of the smokescreen you are continually throwing up, since "dark matter" has nothing to do with anything I have argued, which means, of course, you have missed yet another golden opportunity to tell us what you are banging on about when you mouth the word "god".

No. Just saying content is not applicable.

Eh?

God is not an empty sense if we view it relationally, this is kinda my point.

Once more you (deliberately) miss the point, since I nowhere say: "God is...an empty sense..."; what I did say was this:

"But, even then, since we have absolutely no idea what 'god' is, we do not even know what we would be looking for. The sentence, "Look we have discovered this or that evidence that shows 'god' exists" is devoid of sense, since it contains an empty word, namely "god".

Notice, I assert that the sentence "Look we have discovered this or that evidence that shows 'god' exists" is devoid of sense. I nowhere say what you appear to think I say.

As I noted above, you seem incapable of reading plain and simple English sentences.

And in view of what you said earlier:

God is not an object, but a relationship...

then this sentence:

God is not an empty sense if we view it relationally

must become:

A relationship is not an empty sense if we view it relationally...

And, as I noted above, this must mean that you are related to a relationship! [Again, on your reply to this objection, see below.]

What if you view it by way of relational attributes, like matter and energy?

I might be prepared to do this if you could say what this "it" is, but you can't; which means that one half of this alleged 'relationship' contains an empty term, or lacks a term we can understand, namely "god". Until you tell us what 'god' is, not even you know with what it is that you are related.

Thanks for telling me what i should believe. Is this the place where I say
direct your comments to what I have said not what you would like me to have said?

If you are now telling me that your own 'Holy Book' is wrong, then how can you trust a single thing it says?

Something that gives meaning need not have the properties that enable it to be articulated in order to give meaning.
Is someone not in love unless they can define love?

1) Once more, where have I mentioned 'definition'?

2) Of course, someone can be in love even if they cannot define a single word, let alone "love", but what they cannot do is be in love with someone about which they can tell us, or even themselves, absolutely nothing at all, except that this 'someone' is a 'relationship'.

In that case, in view of what you have said:

God is not an object, but a relationship...

you must be in love, not with a person, but a 'relationship'. Now, that would be enough to undermine the meaning of "love" here, rendering it, too, an empty term in this case, since it applies to the relation between two human beings, or between at least one human being and an idea, cause or ideology, etc. Unless 'god' is merely an idea (But what sort of idea is it? We have yet to be told), a cause or an ideology, no one can be in love with 'him'. Is 'god' therefore a cause or an ideology? [On your claim that 'he' is a person, see below.]

If you can't tell us what 'god' is, then we are justified in concluding that believers can't be 'in love' with 'him' -- and if 'he' is just a 'relationship', then we are justified in concluding that you believers are 'in love' with a relationship -- and an odd one at that, since you lot cannot tell us what the relationship is with.

You keep dodging this issue, or trying to distract attention from the fat that you cannot tell us with what you have this 'relationship'.

Except you throw up this smokescreen:

ALL of you know why? Uh, yea. Anyway, I claim to be related to other people. My relationship with others gain meaning because of a variety of reasons, what makes it all possible tho is god.

No one doubts you can have relationships with other people, but if this is meant to be the model we are supposed to use to help us understand your 'relation; with 'god' then that can only mean 'he' is a person. If so, 'he' has hands, feet, a brain, sexual organs and goes to the toilet. If 'he' does not do/have any of these things, then how is 'he' a person? And if 'he' is not a person, then how can you have a 'relation' with 'him' -- and why did you use this analogy?

Yet more delaying tactics...

Keep dodging? This is the 1st I've seen the question. Precisely we are related to each other, not in the scientific sense, but in the sense that another person means something to me besides selfish concerns or utilitarian notions, what makes that possible is -you guessed it, god.

I have in fact asked this question several times already; for example:

Here, we have an alleged 'relation' with nothing at all on the other side -- or nothing you can tell us anything about.

In that case, you cannot have a relation under such circumstances, except with a figment of your own imagination, and a figment you cannot give any content to. So, this figment is much worse/obscure than if you claimed you have a 'relation' with a unicorn.

At least we'd know what you were making up in that case. Here, neither we, nor you, nor anyone else, has clue what you mean when you bang on about: "god".

And this is a predicament from which you cannot ever hope to extricate yourself, no matter how you try. There is nothing with which you can compare 'god', as Isaiah says. So, the Bible condemns you to permanent silence on this -- hence, this is not something I have just dreamt up.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1531530&postcount=130

and:

Well, we'd be more impressed with these 'relational attributes' if we, or you, had a clue with what it is you are allegedly related.

But, your responses up to now indicate that you cannot tell us what it is you are allegedly related to; even worse, you do not know what you are allegedly related to. So, this 'relation' collapses for want of terms -- there is nothing on the other side of this 'relation'; in which case, this is no more a relation than a one-handed handshake is a handshake.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1531530&postcount=130

So, yes, you are dodging this issue. And you do so again here. Instead of telling us with what it is you are related you merely complain you have seen this challenge before. [On your answer to this, see below.]

Well, you have seen it now, so what is your reply: what lies the other side of this alleged 'relationship'?

Uh, if I call you Risa will that change your nature, or the thing we are talking about. I'm telling you what I'm talking about, and the reference to this relationship is god. Call it scmod, or schmod. I didn't know schmod had a specific meaning for you, or else I would have spelled it correctly? I guess...

And we do not know the meaning of "god", and neither do you; so you might just as well be using "schmod".

Or if you do know what "god" means, you can clear this up right now.

[Expect yet more delaying tactics and/or smokescreens, folks...]

As we will see, your attempted 'answers' to these intractable problems drop you further in that hole you insist on digging.

I'm not? Where did I say schmod engenders meaning between people? Really.

But, you refuse to tell us what 'meaning between people' "god" engenders, so you might just as well have used "schmod".

Both sides are people.

So 'god' is a person, after all, eh? In that case, 'he' had parents and was born at some point, soiled 'his' nappy (if 'he' didn't, then 'he' was eternally constipated), learnt to walk and to speak, was educated, went through puberty, had involuntary erections (if 'he' was a genuine male; if 'he' didn't then 'he' was impotent), had a few illnesses along the way (catching a heavenly virus or bacterium, perhaps, or did an 'angel' sneeze on 'him') -- such as the odd cold, or cough --, fell over now and then, had friends with whom 'he' went to parties, the pub, or a match at the weekend, is growing old and forgetful, will die one day...

Of course, if 'he' did none of these things, then in what way is 'he' a person? Again, if none of these apply to 'him' then the word "person" used of 'god' is just another empty term, as I predicted.

[Of course, the view that 'he' is a person is in flat contradiction to what Isaiah said.]

Because meaning exists between people. In fact, it exists in a way that resists symbolization, we could call it the kernel of the real, but that would be misleading, because we can only speak of it in a relational sense.

Sure it does, but there is no way that 'god' is a person -- unless, of course, you can tell us in what way 'he' is a person.

Anyway, you have already told us this:

God is not an object, but a relationship...

So, 'god' is not a person, but a 'relationship' -- unless you think all people are relationships, too -- and then you'd have problems telling us what they are related to -- yet more relationships? In that case, person A, er.., sorry relationship A would be related to person, er... sorry relationship B, who is in turn related to person, er... sorry relationship C .., and so on.

At no point would we actually encounter a person, just relationships, in this merry-go-round.

And, even these persons/relationships are, or have been objects in their own right; so, if this is the model we are supposed to use to help us understand 'god', then 'god' must be an object of some sort, contrary to what you said.

If not, why use this analogy?

Here's an idea : God is a relationship that makes it possible for meaning to exist.

In that case, 'he' is not a person. Or is 'he' both a 'relationship' and a person? But, if 'he' is a person, he is an object, too. If 'he' is not an object, then in what sense is 'he' a person?

Well, you can't claim I didn't try and help, what with all my answers and all.

But, your 'answers' contradict themselves, and they create far more problems than they solve (and they solve none at all).

I feel having a meaningful existence does me some good.

And Marx diagnosed this ailment of yours: you seek consolation, and 'god' provides it. It's your opiate.

Now, in response to this:

"That means you are related to a relationship, and not to 'god'."

You replied:

Or both.

Once more how can both be the case? If 'god' is a 'relationship' 'he' can't be a person. And if 'he' is a person, then 'he' must be an object.

In that case, you were either mistaken, confused or lying when you denied 'he' was an object.

Once you admit 'he' is an object', your entire case will be in danger of collapsing under the weight of insuperable problems. So, you have a pressing need to deny 'he' is an object. In which case, you will have to deny 'he' is a person, too -- and then you will once again have problems telling us with what it is you have this 'relationship'.

But, this is just the predicament theologians have been in for millennia; I do not think you are likely to come up with something they missed.

As I said, you would be wise to admit alongside the Christian mystics that there is nothing you could say of 'god' and that 'he' is a complete mystery.

In which case, 'he' is no different from nothing at all -- and worse, we have some idea what "nothing at all" means. We still have no idea what "god" means.

Once more: you might just as well use the word "schmod" for all the good it does.

The nature of the second party is that they are human. Now we know!

Does this mean you now think 'god' is a human being?

Pretty big IF...

Indeed, it is, and you have yet to tell us what is on the other side of this alleged 'relationship' you have with 'god'; and we know why: you can't tell us, and neither can anyone else.

Or if you can, you have been remarkably secretive about it up to now.

I have some comprehension.

Which you have so far kept to yourself.

Shall I bow down and snipe that you ought to speak for yourself etc

Makes a change from you trying to speak for me in a paraphrase.

No need to assume I'm right. Its self evident. I already conceded that. But ONLY on condition that god is an object and not a relationship, which he is.[/UOTE]

Eh? Are you now saying 'god' is an object? If not, what is the point of this enigmatic sentence?

[QUOTE]Fatal. Indeed. So I asked you in plain english. Is this you buying time? Or a smokescreen? Where's your answer. I can't find an answer.

1) Since I am not trying to defend a terminally obscure set of doctrines, I do not need to try to buy time. You do.

2) If I were to introduce something completely irrelevant -- say the average price of coffee grinders in Paris in July 1796 --, and demand you pass an opinion on it, you'd be quite right to point out that this has nothing to do with anything you had to say. And that is the case with this latest ploy of yours, which is why I pointed out:

"Since my argument does not depend on whether or not 'matter' and 'energy' are empty terms, this amounts to a fatal admission on your part."

3) The points I originally raised -- that "god" is an empty term -- are relevant to this part of the thread. You have tried to reply, but in doing so, you keep introducing more and more irrelevances, instead of telling us what the content of "god" is, while I keep trying to keep the discussion on track. Now, you have the cheek to accuse me of doing what you have been doing all along when I point out yet another diversionary tactic of yours!

No, I first said it was something like ignosism, its actually called Ignostisism. Not a fantasy, as I suspect you must know.

Well, this confusion of yours meant I had no incentive to try to look this up, since you could not make up your mind what it was you were trying to say. You had in fact three different spellings of this 'subject: "ignosism", "Ignostisism" and "ignosisim". No wonder I looked upon this with some scepticism.

But you said color can't be an empty term. So, if it is not an empty term, not even to a blind person, then why wouldn't they understand? Why wouldn't this be a meaningful term ? It's not empty right?

Well, blind people do understand colour terms. Check this book out (which was co-authored by one of my old teachers, who was blind):

Magee, B., and Milligan, M. (1995), Sight Unseen (Phoenix Press).

But, even if they didn't understand colour terms, that would not imply they were empty, anymore than non-mathematicians not understanding what, say, a Hermite Polynomial is means that this is an empty term, or any more than a child not understanding, say, "recidivist" means it is an empty term. The point is that there is nothing intrinsic to these words which prevents anyone with enough education from understanding them -- this is not the case with "god"

The real difference here is that no one understands what "god" means, and no amount of education can put this right, and you/they can only try to give this word content by the use of equally empty terms -- like your use of "person in relation to 'god'. When asked in what way 'god' is a person, you can only tell us he is not this, not that, not this, not that... You can give this word no content when applied to 'god'.

And thanks for all this; I would have looked it up myself if you have not given us three mis-spellings of this word:

Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.

The view that is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by God?" before proclaiming that the original question "Does God exist?" is meaningless.

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.
Contents [hide]

1 Relationship to other views about God
2 Dependence on a particular view concerning the word God
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
[edit]Relationship to other views about God

Ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are generally synonymous,[2] but the relationship of ignosticism to other nontheistic views is less clear. While Paul Kurtz finds the view to be compatible with both weak atheism and agnosticism,[3] other philosophers consider ignosticism to be distinct.

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.[4] Ayer wrote that this ruled out atheism and agnosticism as well as theism because all three positions assume that the sentence "God exists" is meaningful.[5] Given the meaninglessness of theistic claims, Ayer opined that there was "no logical ground for antagonism between religion and natural science",[6] as theism alone does not entail any propositions which the scientific method can falsify.

Like Ayer, Theodore Drange sees atheism and agnosticism as positions which accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition; atheists judge it to be "false or probably false" and agnostics consider it to be inconclusive until further evidence is met.[7] If Drange's definitions are accepted, ignostics are neither atheists nor agnostics. A simplified maxim on the subject states "An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" '."

Ignosticism is not to be confused with apatheism, a position of apathy toward the existence of God. An apatheist may see the statement "God exists" as meaningless, yet they may also see it as meaningful, and perhaps even true.[8]
[edit]Dependence on a particular view concerning the word God

Drange emphasizes that any stance on "Does God exist?" is made with respect to a particular concept of what one claims to consider "God" to represent:

Since the word "God" has many different meanings, it is possible for the sentence "God exists" to express many different propositions. What we need to do is to focus on each proposition separately. … For each different sense of the term "God," there will be theists, atheists, and agnostics relative to that concept of God.[7]

As God means very different things to different people, when the word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended instead. A theistic child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of God.[9] Many philosophers and theologians have rejected this conception of God while affirming belief in another conception of God, including St. Augustine, Maimonides, St. Thomas Aquinas, Baruch Spinoza, and Søren Kierkegaard.

It is sufficient to point out in reply that this:

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed.

in no way represents my views, since I have repeatedly said I am not seeking a definition of 'god'. Moreover, my views share nothing in common with Professor Ayer's.

Furthermore, the above article seems to represent noncognitivism as a metaphysical theory, and since I am putting forward no theory at all, it shares nothing with my views on that score either.

So, thanks for this; I knew nothing about it until you mentioned it -- but, alas for you, it is only tangentially related to my views -- to which you have yet to respond adequately.

spiltteeth

31st August 2009, 23:24

You seem incredibly confused.

You say God is an empty term.

To prove to you that this is not so, according to you, I cannot give you a definition, I cannot reference other empty terms, like substance, energy, or matter, I cannot give you stipulative or personal significance, evaluative import, ...

Ok, so your position is this :

God is an empty term if you exclude personal significance, evaluative imput, stipulative meanings, all references to matter, energy, or substance, and definitions.

That is true. I concede your point. Bravo. :thumbup1:

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st September 2009, 00:32

Spiltteeth:

You seem incredibly confused.

Well, we have already seen you are good at advancing allegations like this, not too good a backing them up with evidence (as we will see again below).

You say God is an empty term.

No, I said "god" is an empty term; a small but significant difference, connected with the use/mention distinction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction

This is because, 'god', whatever 'he' is, is not a term, but a, er..,. well what?

[Notice I use 'scare quotes' not full quotes here. If you want me to explain the difference, you only have to ask.]

To prove to you that this is not so, according to you, I cannot give you a definition, I cannot reference other empty terms, like substance, energy, or matter, I cannot give you stipulative or personal significance, evaluative import, ...

Once more, and for the twentieth time, I have never asked you for a definition. How many more time do you need telling before it sinks into your mystically-compromised brain?

God is an empty term if you exclude personal significance, evaluative input, stipulative meanings, all references to matter, energy, or substance, and definitions.

Throw all these in, and "god" is still an empty term.

You have yet to show otherwise.

spiltteeth

1st September 2009, 02:31

SO, IF -and I am not - IF I were to say what I mean by God is a dude with a mustache who is a person and lives on pluto THEN God would no longer be an empty term.

You know what I mean by person, mustache, pluto correct?

(Obviously we can then examine this empirically and say well, if he lives on pluto how does he breath, if he's a person he can't live that long etc etc BUT this is not what we are talking about.)

spiltteeth

1st September 2009, 04:22

Oh, and also, your 'challenge' *cough cough* was to tell you what God means without using other empty self-referential terms, NOW you say I can use terms like matter and energy so some empty self referential terms are acceptable but others are not.
SO, you have changed your 'challenge' to telling you what the term God means with reference only to certain empty self-referential terms...Do you choose which empty terms I can or can't use just arbitrarily...?

Your challenge is meaningless, by your own standards !!!

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae191/spiltteeth/i_gamed_your_system.jpg

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st September 2009, 04:25

Spiltteeth:

SO, IF -and I am not - IF I were to say what I mean by God is a dude with a mustache who is a person and lives on pluto THEN God would no longer be an empty term.

Ah, but would this be the 'god' of christianity?

I think not.

That use of "god" would still be empty.

[Yours is a stipulative re-definition -- I already coverd that in a previous post.]

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st September 2009, 04:30

Spiltteeth:

Oh, and also, your 'challenge' *cough cough* was to tell you what God means without using other empty self-referential terms, NOW you say I can use terms like matter and energy so some empty self referential terms are acceptable but others are not.
SO, you have changed your 'challenge' to telling you what the term God means with reference only to certain empty self-referential terms...Do you choose which empty terms I can or can't use just arbitrarily...?

Your challenge is meaningless, by your own standards !!!

No, my challenge is still the same -- let's see you tell us what 'god' is by any means you care to choose -- you will be forced to use words that are themselves empty terms.

[This is in fact a trap -- but please feel free to fall right into it.]

And, please stop confusing 'god' with "god". 'God' is not a term; "god" is.

spiltteeth

1st September 2009, 05:01

Spiltteeth:

No, my challenge is still the same -- let's see you tell us what 'god' is by any means you care to choose -- you will be forced to use words that are themselves empty terms.

[This is in fact a trap -- but please feel free to fall right into it.]

And, please stop confusing 'god' with "god". 'God' is not a term; "god" is.

Well, it can't be by any means I choose. You are confused. You say I will be forced to use words that are themselves empty terms? You said I could. Matter and energy. Of course if your asking me to tell you what I mean by god but THEN telling me I cannot use any words that reference energy or matter I can't do that.

You are confused. You say don't use empty terms. Then you say, you can use the terms energy and matter. But they are empty terms.

Your challenge is non-sensical.
Please address this.

BUT, since I am such a nice guy, and take pity on you, I'll do it anyway.
I'll tell you what I think MOST theists in the west mean when they use the term god. Some of this comes from the dictionary by the by.

I mean by god the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

ta-da!

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st September 2009, 05:16

Spiltteeth:

Well, it can't be by any means I choose. You are confused. You say I will be forced to use words that are themselves empty terms? You said I could. Matter and energy. Of course if your asking me to tell you what I mean by god but THEN telling me I cannot use any words that reference energy or matter I can't do that.

I never restricted you to not using "matter" and "energy"; all I said was that it had nothing to do with anything I was alleging, so I refused to 'define' them, etc.

And, I never said you couldn't use empty words, only that in any attempt to tell us what 'god' is, you would be forced to use empty terms.

So, it looks like you still can't read.

You are confused. You say don't use empty terms. Then you say, you can use the terms energy and matter. But they are empty terms.

Your challenge is non-sensical.
Please address this.

Well, if they are empty terms (and I am neither agreeing with you nor disagreeing with you that they are), then you cannot respond to my challenge, as I alleged.

BUT, since I am such a nice guy, and take pity on you, I'll do it anyway.
I'll tell you what I think MOST theists in the west mean when they use the term god. Some of this comes from the dictionary by the by.

I mean by god the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

Nice try, but the above sentence is devoid of sense since it contains an empty term, namely "god".

[That is why I did not ask for a definition.]

spiltteeth

1st September 2009, 06:02

The term god is not empty because it has a meaning, namely the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe and therefore the sentence is not devoid of sense.

Since you pride yourself on plain english, I have told you what people mean when they use the term god, as per your request that I do not use other empty terms, and in accord with 1) Linguistic meaning, 2) Implication, and sometimes 3) Reference

The being above is what many theists are referring to when they use the term god.

So, I challenge you, for example, to tell us what the word 'God' means without using yet more empty terms.

DOne it!

Unless you have decided arbitrarily a priori that the term god is meaningless...

Now, I do realize that you have no idea what words are or aren't empty, hence you can't 'commit' yourself to revealing your secret as to whether energy and matter are empty, and hence you can't tell me if my meaning contains empty terms. So you have no idea what an answer to your challenge would even look like!
So you can claim I can't tell you what god means without referencing matter or energy and I could challenge you to tell me what anything means without referencing matter or energy!

BUT, regardless, you challenged me to tell you what god means without using meaningless terms and I have.

Your welcome. Anything else confusing you?

Hyacinth

1st September 2009, 09:22

[T]he one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe...
Except that most of these are themselves empty metaphysical terms. Metaphysicians are no closer to telling us what they mean by "Being" than theologians are to telling us what they mean by "god".

Hyacinth

1st September 2009, 09:30

Now, I do realize that you have no idea what words are or aren't empty, hence you can't 'commit' yourself to revealing your secret as to whether energy and matter are empty, and hence you can't tell me if my meaning contains empty terms. So you have no idea what an answer to your challenge would even look like!
Except we've already covered this:

Setting aside for a moment that matter and energy are definable independently of each other, and it is only in contemporary physical theories where there is an equivalence between the two, there is still a relevant difference between the technical terms of science and empty metaphysical terms. Technical scientific terms can be operationalized, and are employed within theories to make predictions about the world, in contrast with empty metaphysical terms, which, even if they can be given some impredicative definition with some metaphysical system, are not operationalizable, and say nothing about the world.
Technical scientific terms can be given a sense insofar as they are operationalizable. Scientists can, for the purpose of a theory, stipulate what these terms will mean (within the theory) in a technical sense by providing us with some criteria for their application; in the instance of many such technical terms the criteria will be some measurement or other.

I don't here claim to speak for Rosa, as I'm not sure as to what her view on this is, but whatever it is, you've yet to give anyone a reason as to why we ought to regard technical scientific terms as equivalent to metaphysical ones.

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st September 2009, 11:23

Spiltteeth:

The term god is not empty because it has a meaning, namely the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe and therefore the sentence is not devoid of sense.

But, we still haven't a clue what it is that has these attributes. So, your 'definition' is no more use to us than if you were to say this:

The term "schmod" is not empty because it has a meaning, namely the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe and therefore the sentence is not devoid of sense.

which, as we can now see, is devoid of sense because of the use of the no less empty term, "schmod".

Same with your sentence.

Again, that is why I haven't been asking you for a definition of "god" -- a definition is no good if we have no clue what it is that is being defined.

So, if I were to define a Hermite Polynomial, and you had no idea what one of these is, and did not understand the defining terms I used, you'd be no further forward.

In a similar manner, defining "god" is of no use at all -- since even you have no idea what on earth you are talking about when you use this term -- and neither has anyone else. So, you are in a far worse position than I would be trying to define a Hermite Polynomial for you.

This is the unique bind you theists are in; no one has a clue what you are talking about when you use this empty word, and neither have you.

And there is no way out for you.

Since you pride yourself on plain english, I have told you what people mean when they use the term god, as per your request that I do not use other empty terms, and in accord with 1) Linguistic meaning, 2) Implication, and sometimes 3) Reference

The being above is what many theists are referring to when they use the term god.

Again, we still nave no clue what you are referring to by the use of this term, any more than you have when I use the word "schmod".

DOne it!

I think not.

Unless you have decided arbitrarily a priori that the term god is meaningless...

No more than you have decided a priori that "schmod" is meaningless.

And you are still confusing 'god' with a term. "God" is a term, but 'god' is a person, according to you.

Now, I do realize that you have no idea what words are or aren't empty, hence you can't 'commit' yourself to revealing your secret as to whether energy and matter are empty, and hence you can't tell me if my meaning contains empty terms. So you have no idea what an answer to your challenge would even look like!

It is not up to me to provide you with any help at all; it is up to you to demonstrate that "god" is not an empty term. You can use whatever resources you want -- but up to now you have failed tell us what you believers are banging on about when you use the word "god", and more than I have when I use "schmod".

So you can claim I can't tell you what god means without referencing matter or energy and I could challenge you to tell me what anything means without referencing matter or energy!

Where did I claim that you couldn't use these terms?

You keep saying such things, but the longer you do, the longer it will take you to rise to my challenge.

Here is what I have said most recently:

I never restricted you to not using "matter" and "energy"; all I said was that it had nothing to do with anything I was alleging, so I refused to 'define' them, etc.

And, I never said you couldn't use empty words, only that in any attempt to tell us what 'god' is, you would be forced to use empty terms.

So, it looks like you still can't read.

Bold added

So, this is just another smokescreen on your part.

BUT, regardless, you challenged me to tell you what god means without using meaningless terms and I have.

And yet you keep using the empty term "god" -- so you are no nearer telling us what you mean than you were when we began

Anything else confusing you?

Not quite as much as they appear to be confusing you.

spiltteeth

1st September 2009, 19:47

First, none of those meanings are metaphysically empty terms.
I would argue that asking me what being is, or what god's being is, is a meaningless question since the concept of "being" really has no meaning at all, since we only define an object's existence by its relation to other objects, and actions it undertakes. The term "I am" has no meaning by itself; it must have an action or relation appended to it, and I've already said god is relational in nature.

Haycinth you've yet to give anyone a reason as to why we ought to regard technical scientific terms as equivalent to metaphysical ones.

I'm glad I haven't since that is not being discussed in this thread.

So, if I were to define a Hermite Polynomial, and you had no idea what one of these is, and did not understand the defining terms I used, you'd be no further forward.

That actually depends on your definition. Your looking for a positive statement that explains to you in what way is god a being. However my meanings do give you an idea of god's being by inference of negative statements.
If something created everything else that exists, then that something would, of necessity, have a different nature than anything else that exists. It could not possibly be an atom, or a dog, or a pie, or anything else physical, since it created time, space, energy, and matter, for instance.

Also, this is why I said :
I think Rosa is wrong to assume relational attributes to be less real than primary attributes. I disagree with the parameters of her investigation. Relation is the primary attribute of any thing - on two levels, 1/ we cannot understand any meaning of a thing except by way of our relationship to the thing and/or the things relationship to other things and 2/ No thing exists in the cosmos except by way of relationship. Even matter itself only exists as the relationship between sub-atomic particles. Knowledge of matter itself is an illusion or an assumption (or non-cognition) based only on perception of relational attributes.

because I knew you or someone would say something like "You don't tell me what this "being" is, you just tell me the attributes related to it."

Anyway, I told you what people mean when they use the term 'god', the specific relational attributes are enough to give the term 'god' meaning.

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st September 2009, 20:26

Spiltteeth:

First, none of those meanings are metaphysically empty terms.

I beg to differ on that one, but that was not the crux of my reply to this 'definition' of yours.

I would argue that asking me what being is, or what god's being is, is a meaningless question since the concept of "being" really has no meaning at all, since we only define an object's existence by its relation to other objects, and actions it undertakes. The term "I am" has no meaning by itself; it must have an action or relation appended to it, and I've already said god is relational in nature.

Once more, you are inventing things to out in my mouth that aren't there, for nowhere do I mention 'god's' 'being'.

And I know you have already told us that "god" is a relational term, but I dealt with that in my last long reply to you, which you have conveniently ignored.

That actually depends on your definition. Your looking for a positive statement that explains to you in what way is god a being. However my meanings do give you an idea of god's being by inference of negative statements.

Not so; if you have no idea who Hermite was, or what a polynomial is, then no definition will help you. An explanation might, and that is why I have been asking for an explanation not a definition of 'god'.

And I know about the via negativa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology) -- a process by which 'god' dies the death of a thousand qualifications. In that case, you can tell us what 'he' isn't, but not what he is.

Hence, 'god' is no better than nothing at all, and far worse, for we have some idea, however vague, what nothing at all is.

And this transcendental argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_arguments) of yours cuts no ice:

If something created everything else that exists, then that something would, of necessity, have a different nature than anything else that exists. It could not possibly be an atom, or a dog, or a pie, or anything else physical, since it created time, space, energy, and matter, for instance

Again, this might give us some clue about what 'god' isn't, but it helps not one iota in telling us what 'he' is.

Once more -- as such, the sentence: "'God' is not this, nor this, nor this..." is devoid of sense, since it contains an empty term, "god".

As I have already told you, and several times: Your arguments will continually run to ground on this immovable rock.

And there is no way you can extract yourself from this predicament.

Also, this is why I said :
I think Rosa is wrong to assume relational attributes to be less real than primary attributes. I disagree with the parameters of her investigation. Relation is the primary attribute of any thing - on two levels, 1/ we cannot understand any meaning of a thing except by way of our relationship to the thing and/or the things relationship to other things and 2/ No thing exists in the cosmos except by way of relationship. Even matter itself only exists as the relationship between sub-atomic particles. Knowledge of matter itself is an illusion or an assumption (or non-cognition) based only on perception of relational attributes.

because I knew you or someone would say something like "You don't tell me what this "being" is, you just tell me the attributes related to it."

I have never said, nor implied that relational attributes are less real than primary ones - since that would be a metaphysical thesis, all of which I reject as non-sense.

And how you can know this, I fail to see:

No thing exists in the cosmos except by way of relationship.

But, even if you are right, this in no way helps us understand "god", since there is nothing in the universe which can be compared with 'him', according to Isaiah.

As yet, we still have no clue whatsoever what you are claiming to be related to. If anything, this puts 'relational attributes', as you call them, on a par with 'primary attributes' -- if you don't have the latter, you don't have the former.

And, we already know, you don't have the latter.

But, even if you did, the sentence "'God' has these primary and relational attributes: A, B, C,..." would be devoid of sense, since it contains an empty term, "god".

The totally unique nature of 'god' puts 'him' forever beyond anyone's grasp, so there is absolutely nothing positive you can tell us about 'him' (except you use empty terms to do so -- like person"; on that, see below).

Once more, your argument founders on this rock.

because I knew you or someone would say something like "You don't tell me what this "being" is, you just tell me the attributes related to it."

Since I haven't used the word "being" this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Anyway, I told you what people mean when they use the term 'god', the specific relational attributes are enough to give the term 'god' meaning.

And I have branded these empty words, since we still haven't a clue what 'god' is -- we already know from what you have told us that 'he' is a 'person', but not an object -- how that is possible you failed to say -- and I pointed out to you that you must be using "person" in a new, and as yet unspecified sense. This is because we associate these sorts of things with being a 'person' (this was posted earlier, and you failed to respond to it):

So 'god' is a person, after all, eh? In that case, 'he' had parents and was born at some point, soiled 'his' nappy (if 'he' didn't, then 'he' was eternally constipated), learnt to walk and to speak, was educated, went through puberty, had involuntary erections (if 'he' was a genuine male; if 'he' didn't then 'he' was impotent), had a few illnesses along the way (catching a heavenly virus or bacterium, perhaps, or did an 'angel' sneeze on 'him') -- such as the odd cold, or cough --, fell over now and then, had friends with whom 'he' went to parties, the pub, or a match at the weekend, is growing old and forgetful, will die one day...

Of course, if 'he' did none of these things, then in what way is 'he' a person? Again, if none of these apply to 'him' then the word "person" used of 'god' is just another empty term, as I predicted.

[Of course, the view that 'he' is a person is in flat contradiction to what Isaiah said.]

In that case, either the word "person" as you are using it in connection with 'god' bears no relation to the word we ordinarily use to describe our fellow human beings, and is thus an empty term in itself, or you are using this word as the rest of us do, and the above absurdities must apply to 'god'.

If the former, then my prediction has come to pass: you cannot tell us anything positive about 'god' except you use empty terms --, in this case, your odd use of "person".

If that latter, then this 'god' of yours is not the 'god' of Christianity, and we must search further for some content to the word "god" as Christians use it.

spiltteeth

1st September 2009, 22:18

Spiltteeth:

I beg to differ on that one, but that was not the crux of my reply to this 'definition' of yours.

I'd be happy to tell you what I mean by all those terms but I was replying to Hycinth.

Once more, you are inventing things to out in my mouth that aren't there, for nowhere do I mention 'god's' 'being'.

Again, I was replying to Hycinth.

And I know you have already told us that "god" is a relational term, but I dealt with that in my last long reply to you, which you have conveniently ignored.

Actually I politely ignored since you completely misunderstood me, which is why I gave you a fresh new meaning so I would'nt break my brain trying to sort out the absurd misunderstandings.

Not so; if you have no idea who Hermite was, or what a polynomial is, then no definition will help you. An explanation might, and that is why I have been asking for an explanation not a definition of 'god'.

An explanation? I was telling you what most theist mean when they use the term god.

And I know about the via negativa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology) -- a process by which 'god' dies the death of a thousand qualifications. In that case, you can tell us what 'he' isn't, but not what he is.

Hence, 'god' is no better than nothing at all, and far worse, for we have some idea, however vague, what nothing at all is.

I'm not going to look at the wiki, but yr sentence seems confused, I think yr using the term 'god' wrong. Look to my past post to explain what god means.

And this transcendental argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_arguments) of yours cuts no ice:

Again, this might give us some clue about what 'god' isn't, but it helps not one iota in telling us what 'he' is.

Once more -- as such, the sentence: "'God' is not this, nor this, nor this..." is devoid of sense, since it contains an empty term, "god".

As I have already told you, and several times: Your arguments will continually run to ground on this immovable rock.

And there is no way you can extract yourself from this predicament.

I told you what god means, in plain english.

I have never said, nor implied that relational attributes are less real than primary ones - since that would be a metaphysical thesis, all of which I reject as non-sense.

Good! Well, I've given you the relational attributes of god, namely the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe

And how you can know this, I fail to see:

But, even if you are right, this in no way helps us understand "god", since there is nothing in the universe which can be compared with 'him', according to Isaiah.

So, now the meaning must also accord with Isaiah? Or am I missing the point of this constant reference.

As yet, we still have no clue whatsoever what you are claiming to be related to. If anything, this puts 'relational attributes', as you call them, on a par with 'primary attributes' -- if you don't have the latter, you don't have the former.

And, we already know, you don't have the latter.

The fact that I have given you relational attributes MUST mean there necessarily is primary attributes, or else the relational attributes could not exist!
What I suspect, though you will not come out and say it, for reasons painfully obvious to me, is that you now wish to go back and change the challenge to tell you, in plain english, what I mean by the term god using primary attributes. I suspect you wish me to explain god's being.

But, even if you did, the sentence "'God' has these primary and relational attributes: A, B, C,..." would be devoid of sense, since it contains an empty term, "god".

The term god is not empty because it has a meaning, namely the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe and therefore the sentence is not devoid of sense.

The totally unique nature of 'god' puts 'him' forever beyond anyone's grasp, so there is absolutely nothing positive you can tell us about 'him' (except you use empty terms to do so -- like person"; on that, see below).

Once more, your argument founders on this rock.

Welp, there we are. You did accept and understand my meaning of god, so much so that you have engaged it and come to a conclusion, that we can never say anything positive about him. For your sentence above to make sense the term 'god' could not be empty.
The above is proof that 1) god is not an empty term and 2) you have accepted it as such, even to the degree of making a judgment.

I haven't used the word "being" this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Since you -tacitly-seem to reject the validity of my relational attributes, I am still very suspicious that what you really want is for me to "explain" god's being.

And I have branded these empty words, since we still haven't a clue what 'god' is -- we already know from what you have told us that 'he' is a 'person', but not an object -- how that is possible you failed to say -- and I pointed out to you that you must be using "person" in a new, and as yet unspecified sense. This is because we associate these sorts of things with being a 'person' (this was posted earlier, and you failed to respond to it):

[QUOTE]In that case, either the word "person" as you are using it in connection with 'god' bears no relation to the word we ordinarily use to describe our fellow human beings, and is thus an empty term in itself, or you are using this word as the rest of us do, and the above absurdities must apply to 'god'.

If the former, then my prediction has come to pass: you cannot tell us anything positive about 'god' except you use empty terms --, in this case, your odd use of "person".

If that latter, then this 'god' of yours is not the 'god' of Christianity, and we must search further for some content to the word "god" as Christians use it.

I never said he was a person, you completely misunderstood what I was saying, if it was sloppiness on my part I apologize, hence I have given you a easily understood plain english meaning of god, namely the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st September 2009, 23:26

Spiltteeth:

Actually I politely ignored since you completely misunderstood me, which is why I gave you a fresh new meaning so I wouldn't break my brain trying to sort out the absurd misunderstandings.

Well, then, what do you mean by 'relationship' and/or 'person'? [On your withdrawl of the word "peson" as applied to 'god', see the end. However, if 'god' is not a person, then you can't have a 'relation wth 'him'. Why not is explained below, too.]

I was telling you what most theists mean when they use the term "god".

And, as I pointed out, the definite descriptions you used are no help at all, since we still have no idea what they are descriptions of.

From earlier:

I mean by god the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

Contrast this with, say, an attempt to tell us who Barak Obama is. Hence, we say he is the 44th president of the USA, the husband of Michelle Obama, the...

Now, we have some idea of who Obama is because we know he is man, and so these definite descriptions tell us about him, and help fix the sense of his name.

This is not so with 'god'; we have no idea what 'he' is, except he isn't this, isn't that...

So, your 'definition' is no good at all --- once more, that is why I did not ask for a definition.

In that case, this 'explanation' of yours is not an explanation; we still have no idea what the subject of these definite descriptions is.

I'm not going to look at the wiki, but yr sentence seems confused, I think yr using the term 'god' wrong. Look to my past post to explain what god means.

I am not using the term "god", only mentioning it. If you want to know the difference, then check out the wiki page I listed a few posts ago -- or stay ignorant. [I have included that link again below.]

And we already know that you are good at advancing such allegations, rather less good at substantiating them.

No change here, then.

I told you what god means, in plain english.

No, you gave me a series of definite descriptions; but, as I have pointed out, we have no idea what these descriptions are [I]of.

So, since the sentences in which you listed these descriptions contain an empty word -- namely "god" -- those sentences themselves are without sense.

Once more, your attempt to explain yourself founders on the same rock.

Good! Well, I've given you the relational attributes of god, namely the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe

These do not look relational at all -- surely 'he' was this before anything else existed?

Anyway, as I have pointed out, these are no help at all since we are still totally in the dark about the alleged subject of these descriptions.

For all we know, and for all you know, they are false, or they describe nothing at all.

So, now the meaning must also accord with Isaiah? Or am I missing the point of this constant reference.

Meaning in the sense of reference and inference, yes. According to Isaiah, there is nothing with which you can compare 'god' -- not with a person, object, thing...

In that case, you are in a permanent bind: there is nothing you can say that will relieve the impenetrable gloom that will forever surround the use of the word "god".

The fact that I have given you relational attributes MUST mean there necessarily is primary attributes, or else the relational attributes could not exist!

What you have done is confuse what you call 'relational attributes' of something you call "god" with definite descriptions that apply to 'him' whether or not 'he' is related to anything at all -- these descriptions were surely true of 'him' before 'he' began to create anything. Or do you think that 'his' creation is as eternal as 'god' is?

What I suspect, though you will not come out and say it, for reasons painfully obvious to me, is that you now wish to go back and change the challenge to tell you, in plain english, what I mean by the term god using primary attributes. I suspect you wish me to explain god's being

No, my challenge is exactly the same as it ever was, just as your delaying tactics have not changed.

The term "god" is not empty because it has a meaning, namely the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe and therefore the sentence is not devoid of sense.

Again, I have corrected this, since you still seem to want to confuse 'god' with a term. The term is "god". Is this getting through yet?

Anyway, you haven't shown that the term "god" is not empty, or given us its meaning; all you have done is list a few descriptions of something you say is 'god', but we still have no idea what these descriptions are descriptions [I]of.

Contrast that again with Barak Obama: we know what/who these are descriptions of: a man.

We have no such knowledge of 'god'. Hence these descriptions are no use at all.

You did accept and understand my meaning of god, so much so that you have engaged it and come to a conclusion, that we can never say anything positive about him. For your sentence above to make sense the term 'god' could not be empty.
The above is proof that 1) god is not an empty term and 2) you have accepted it as such, even to the degree of making a judgment.

I am careful to limit my comments to the term "god" or to the putative subject 'god'; in so doing I take the beliefs you have, and show that they are empty. This in no way implies I accept a single thing you say about 'god', or "god" as true.

Your difficulty here arises from the fact that, no matter how many times I try to tell you, you are still determined to confuse the use of the word "god" with its mention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction

That is why I keep correcting you when you say 'god' is a term, when only "god" is.

Since you -tacitly-seem to reject the validity of my relational attributes, I am still very suspicious that what you really want is for me to "explain" god's being.

I do not reject them, I merely say they are not relational, and even if they were, they are of no help at all, since we do not know to what they relate.

And, just like you perseverated over the word 'definition', you are now perseverating over the word 'being'. I have not used this word, nor will I.

And that is because it is only slightly less obscure than "god" is.

I never said he was a person, you completely misunderstood what I was saying, if it was sloppiness on my part I apologize, hence I have given you a easily understood plain english meaning of god, namely the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe

Oh yes you did: in response to my questioning what was on both sides of the relationship you think you have with 'god', you replied:

Both sides are people.

Here is the exchange:

Me:

"Then it's not a relation, it's an object. Or if it is still a relation, then what stands on either side of that relation? So, on one side stand you believers, but what is on the other side?"

You:

Both sides are people.

Me:

"Now, either you know and won't say, or you do not know. Which is it?"

You:

Neither. Both sides are people.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1531760&postcount=137

Now, you might have spoken hastily here, so you might not mean what you appear to mean. But, then, you are back to square one, for your analogy with human relationships, where both sides are people, is now no good, for we have a here 'relationship' that has a human being on one side, and a 'we-do-not-know-what' on the other.

So, I am quite happy for you to withdraw your claim that 'god' is a person, since that will scupper your use of "relationship" in connection with 'god' (for the above reasons), as well as killing 'god' off some more with yet another negative qualification.

We now know that 'god' is not an object, not a person..., so we have even less idea what you are banging on about when you use the word "god" than we were before.

And, as I said earlier, these new definite descriptions you offer are no use at all, since they can apply to a person, but since 'god' is no longer a person for you, they apply to, well, what?

So, "god" is still an empty term.

spiltteeth

2nd September 2009, 02:19

Spiltteeth:

Well, then, what do you mean by 'relationship' and/or 'person'? [On your withdrawl of the word "peson" as applied to 'god', see the end. However, if 'god' is not a person, then you can't have a 'relation wth 'him'. Why not is explained below, too.]

And, as I pointed out, the definite descriptions you used are no help at all, since we still have no idea what they are descriptions of.

From earlier:

Contrast this with, say, an attempt to tell us who Barak Obama is. Hence, we say he is the 44th president of the USA, the husband of Michelle Obama, the...

Now, we have some idea of who Obama is because we know he is man, and so these definite descriptions tell us about him, and help fix the sense of his name.

This is not so with 'god'; we have no idea what 'he' is, except he isn't this, isn't that...

So, your 'definition' is no good at all --- once more, that is why I did not ask for a definition.

In that case, this 'explanation' of yours is not an explanation; we still have no idea what the subject of these definite descriptions is.

I am not using the term "god", only mentioning it. If you want to know the difference, then check out the wiki page I listed a few posts ago -- or stay ignorant. [I have included that link again below.]

And we already know that you are good at advancing such allegations, rather less good at substantiating them.

No change here, then.

No, you gave me a series of definite descriptions; but, as I have pointed out, we have no idea what these descriptions are [I]of.

So, since the sentences in which you listed these descriptions contain an empty word -- namely "god" -- those sentences themselves are without sense.

Once more, your attempt to explain yourself founders on the same rock.

These do not look relational at all -- surely 'he' was this before anything else existed?

Anyway, as I have pointed out, these are no help at all since we are still totally in the dark about the alleged subject of these descriptions.

For all we know, and for all you know, they are false, or they describe nothing at all.

Meaning in the sense of reference and inference, yes. According to Isaiah, there is nothing with which you can compare 'god' -- not with a person, object, thing...

In that case, you are in a permanent bind: there is nothing you can say that will relieve the impenetrable gloom that will forever surround the use of the word "god".

What you have done is confuse what you call 'relational attributes' of something you call "god" with definite descriptions that apply to 'him' whether or not 'he' is related to anything at all -- these descriptions were surely true of 'him' before 'he' began to create anything. Or do you think that 'his' creation is as eternal as 'god' is?

No, my challenge is exactly the same as it ever was, just as your delaying tactics have not changed.

Again, I have corrected this, since you still seem to want to confuse 'god' with a term. The term is "god". Is this getting through yet?

Anyway, you haven't shown that the term "god" is not empty, or given us its meaning; all you have done is list a few descriptions of something you say is 'god', but we still have no idea what these descriptions are descriptions [I]of.

Contrast that again with Barak Obama: we know what/who these are descriptions of: a man.

We have no such knowledge of 'god'. Hence these descriptions are no use at all.

I am careful to limit my comments to the term "god" or to the putative subject 'god'; in so doing I take the beliefs you have, and show that they are empty. This in no way implies I accept a single thing you say about 'god', or "god" as true.

Your difficulty here arises from the fact that, no matter how many times I try to tell you, you are still determined to confuse the use of the word "god" with its mention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction

That is why I keep correcting you when you say 'god' is a term, when only "god" is.

I do not reject them, I merely say they are not relational, and even if they were, they are of no help at all, since we do not know to what they relate.

And, just like you perseverated over the word 'definition', you are now perseverating over the word 'being'. I have not used this word, nor will I.

And that is because it is only slightly less obscure than "god" is.

Oh yes you did: in response to my questioning what was on both sides of the relationship you think you have with 'god', you replied:

Here is the exchange:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1531760&postcount=137

Now, you might have spoken hastily here, so you might not mean what you appear to mean. But, then, you are back to square one, for your analogy with human relationships, where both sides are people, is now no good, for we have a here 'relationship' that has a human being on one side, and a 'we-do-not-know-what' on the other.

So, I am quite happy for you to withdraw your claim that 'god' is a person, since that will scupper your use of "relationship" in connection with 'god' (for the above reasons), as well as killing 'god' off some more with yet another negative qualification.

We now know that 'god' is not an object, not a person..., so we have even less idea what you are banging on about when you use the word "god" than we were before.

And, as I said earlier, these new definite descriptions you offer are no use at all, since they can apply to a person, but since 'god' is no longer a person for you, they apply to, well, what?

So, "god" is still an empty term.

Ok, I said that you misunderstood the previous post, for instance by relationship, I meant between two human people, one of them is not god. Really, it would take A LOT of work just to disentangle what you misunderstood and what I meant, you wanna blame it on my sloppiness, fine, if you'd like to go backwards and discuss it, fine. It's irrelevant, but I'm willing to go throughout it all, but first can we get this staighened out?

I am intrigued by your Obama comment. So, what if I ask what do you mean by "man." In fact I challenge you to do it, without using empty terms.
Unless you are using meaningless sentences...

So by god I am referring to the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.
Now, you are saying you have some idea of Obama because you have an idea of what is meant by 'man,' (even if I don't)

So, I'll tell you what I mean by my terms.

the one Supreme Being :
eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, they mean the one being who is supposed to possess all those properties

The most Perfect Being,
the being who is alleged to be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent

love,
Most people know what you mean by love to the extent that love exists.

the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything,
intends to thereby refer to the entity without which it is supposed that nothing could exist. Put another way, I mean the entity whose existence is supposedly necessary for existence itself.

personal,
by which is meant -and we can easily imagine it - to refer to a being who is able to perform any act that is both conceivable and compatible with all of his other essential characteristics, who has all and only true propositions as beliefs, so it is hard to see to what sort of entity, if not one of a personal ilk, we might ascribe those properties.

omnipotent,
the being who supposedly can perform any act that is both conceivable and compatible with all of the beings other essential characteristics

omniscient,
omniscience as the property of possessing maximal propositional knowledge

omnibenevolent,
loves everyone maximally, ie the being that always does everything in it's power to protect everyone’s best long-term interests (out of concern for others’ welfare)”
which means the being who performs that act which ultimately brings about a greater degree of happiness (or comfort, well-being, etc.) among people generally than could any other act, then god does that which is in everyone’s best long-term interests.”
( Obviously while pleasing most people does not immediately please everyone, in bringing about the greatest possible measure of (overall) happiness it ipso facto creates the ideal world, and the creation of that world is certainly in everyone’s best long-term interests whether he realizes it or not.)

nonmaterial,
property - bodiless

eternal
The being that is suposed to persist forever throughout time.

creator and ruler of the universe.

Everyone understands perfectly well what it means to create something and a cosmos is just a very big thing (or collection of things). Likewise with the concept of ruling something.

So, I have told you in plain english what most theists mean/refer to when in everyday life they use the term god.

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd September 2009, 02:44

Spiltteeth:

Ok, I said that you misunderstood the previous post, for instance by relationship, I meant between two human people, one of them is not god. Really, it would take A LOT of work just to disentangle what you misunderstood and what I meant, you wanna blame it on my sloppiness, fine, if you'd like to go backwards and discuss it, fine. It's irrelevant, but I'm willing to go throughout it all, but first can we get this straightened out?

As I pointed out, if 'god' is not a person, then you must be using "relationship" in a new, and as yet unspecified sense -- and unless you say what that sense is, it must remain an empty term.

In which case, we are no clearer about your alleged 'relationship' to 'god' than we are about what you are banging on about when you use the word "god".

I am intrigued by your Obama comment. So, what if I ask what do you mean by "man." In fact I challenge you to do it, without using empty terms.
Unless you are using meaningless sentences...

Well, you might think this could help you, but it can't, for if we cannot give content to the word "man", then "god" stands no chance.

In which case, if "man" is an empty term, then so is "god", only much more so -- since we have some inkling what a man is, but we haven't the faintest idea what 'god' is, and neither have you.

So by god I am referring to the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.
Now, you are saying you have some idea of Obama because you have an idea of what is meant by 'man,' (even if I don't)

As I noted above, these definite descriptions you pin so much hope on are no help at all, since we have no idea what they are supposed to be descriptions of, and neither have you.

And you are right, they are referring expression, but as we know, they might be referring to nothing at all.

So, you will need to find some other way of telling us what you are banging on about when you use the word "god".

And thanks for all this, but since I used to be a benighted soul -- a Christian -- once, and a student of theology, too, I am well aware of all these empty terms:

the one Supreme Being :
eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, they mean the one being who is supposed to possess all those properties

The most Perfect Being,
the being who is alleged to be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent

love,
Most people know what you mean by love to the extent that love exists.

the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything,
intends to thereby refer to the entity without which it is supposed that nothing could exist. Put another way, I mean the entity whose existence is supposedly necessary for existence itself.

personal,
by which is meant -and we can easily imagine it - to refer to a being who is able to perform any act that is both conceivable and compatible with all of his other essential characteristics, who has all and only true propositions as beliefs, so it is hard to see to what sort of entity, if not one of a personal ilk, we might ascribe those properties.

omnipotent,
the being who supposedly can perform any act that is both conceivable and compatible with all of the beings other essential characteristics

omniscient,
omniscience as the property of possessing maximal propositional knowledge

omnibenevolent,
loves everyone maximally, ie the being that always does everything in it's power to protect everyone’s best long-term interests (out of concern for others’ welfare)”
which means the being who performs that act which ultimately brings about a greater degree of happiness (or comfort, well-being, etc.) among people generally than could any other act, then god does that which is in everyone’s best long-term interests.”
( Obviously while pleasing most people does not immediately please everyone, in bringing about the greatest possible measure of (overall) happiness it ipso facto creates the ideal world, and the creation of that world is certainly in everyone’s best long-term interests whether he realizes it or not.)

nonmaterial,
property - bodiless

eternal
The being that is supposed to persist forever throughout time.

creator and ruler of the universe.

A set of descriptions are only of use if we are clear what they are descriptions of, and you have yet to tell us.

Once more, this is the intractable predicament in which you have dropped yourself, and there is no way out.

You can keep wasting your time trying desperately to find the exit, but in 2000 years, no theist has been able to.

And you are not doing too well, either.

So, the signs are not good...

Hyacinth

2nd September 2009, 05:09

First, none of those meanings are metaphysically empty terms.
Then you'd be happy to tell us what they mean?

I would argue that asking me what being is, or what god's being is, is a meaningless question since the concept of "being" really has no meaning at all, since we only define an object's existence by its relation to other objects, and actions it undertakes. The term "I am" has no meaning by itself; it must have an action or relation appended to it, and I've already said god is relational in nature.
If the concept of being has no meaning, then neither does the concept of Perfect Being, Supreme Being, Ground of Being, etc. All of which you've said god is, and if those are meaningless, as you confess, then so too is "god". As for god being relational in nature, yes, you've said it, except you've yet to explain what exactly this means. If god is a being, as you claim, then it cannot be a relation, and if it is a relation, then it cannot have any of the attributes that you attribute to it such as personhood, etc. Also, what relation is god?

I'm glad I haven't since that is not being discussed in this thread.
Well, actually it is since you've brought it up in a futile attempts to defend your metaphysical nonsense, by trying to claim that it is no more grounded than science. I challenged this, and you've yet to provide a response. So either withdraw your claim that metaphysical terms are as empty as scientific ones, or respond.

spiltteeth

2nd September 2009, 05:09

Spiltteeth:

As I pointed out, if 'god' is not a person, then you must be using "relationship" in a new, and as yet unspecified sense -- and unless you say what that sense is, it must remain an empty term.

In which case, we are no clearer about your alleged 'relationship' to 'god' than we are about what you are banging on about when you use the word "god".

Well, you might think this could help you, but it can't, for if we cannot give content to the word "man", then "god" stands no chance.

In which case, if "man" is an empty term, then so is "god", only much more so -- since we have some inkling what a man is, but we haven't the faintest idea what 'god' is, and neither have you.

As I noted above, these definite descriptions you pin so much hope on are no help at all, since we have no idea what they are supposed to be descriptions of, and neither have you.

And you are right, they are referring expression, but as we know, they might be referring to nothing at all.

So, you will need to find some other way of telling us what you are banging on about when you use the word "god".

And thanks for all this, but since I used to be a benighted soul -- a Christian -- once, and a student of theology, too, I am well aware of all these empty terms:

A set of descriptions are only of use if we are clear what they are descriptions of, and you have yet to tell us.

Once more, this is the intractable predicament in which you have dropped yourself, and there is no way out.

You can keep wasting your time trying desperately to find the exit, but in 2000 years, no theist has been able to.

And you are not doing too well, either.

So, the signs are not good...

Your not to good at challenges huh? I've given you two and you refuse to answer or engage in them.

You are the one that brought Obama up.

I keep asking what a meaning of god would look like,

for instance 'god is meaningful if....'

And you don't seem to know yourself, you brought up an example -Obama, I am telling you your example is meaningless, because it has an empty term, namely 'man.'

Now I've said IF your challenge is to give meaning to a term -god- without referencing matter, energy, or substance than I can't.
I am saying -in plain english- that this is what your challenge amounts to since matter, energy, and substance are all empty terms.

Now I will concede you are correct -in fact I have several times - as long as you are willing to maintain your intellectual integrity and avoid similar empty terms in your posts.

IF god is a meaningless term THEN every term that references matter, energy, or substance must also be empty.

Hence I did say :

Ok, so your position is this :

"God is an empty term if you exclude personal significance, evaluative imput, stipulative meanings, all references to matter, energy, or substance, and definitions.

That is true. I concede your point. Bravo."

So, then I tell you, many of your sentences in many of your posts are similarly meaningless because they contain empty terms. Correct?

Now I've asked you 3 things none of which I expect an honest answer too.
Unless your going to 'put me in my place.'

So, will you answer any of my challenges or do you only dish them out, and when the consequences of your own position threaten to come undone you bail?

You are in the exact same position as I am, since you use similar empty terms all the time! In fact, in the very post above you used at least one -man!

THen I ask you : what would a thing that cannot be referenced by energy, matter, or substance look like? So I know.
You tried the Obama thang, then...quit?

Or I could try yr own bullshit : I might be inclined to answer if you could tell me what you mean by 'man'.

Since I, at least, have intellectual integrity, I'll tell you my church's position :
From an Orthodox perspective, the unqualified phrase "God exists" is in fact, meaningless as you assert.
If by "God", we mean the Orthodox Christian understanding of what little is known about the Transcendent God, then God is the Source of Existence, by virtue of which, God is beyond Existence. God does not exist in the same way I exist, or my computer exists, or the chair I'm sitting on exists, since God is the Source of their Existence. We can't put God in the set of "Things That Exist", since (a) by the definition of God, the things in that set owe their existence to God and (b) God is not a "thing" since, by definition, God gave "thingness" to all things.

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo gonna answer any of my queries, or do you only answer questions that don't make you look silly?

Which choice do you think I am predicting, based on your character or lack thereof?
Oh, wait, I forgot you do not answer those types of questions or seek clarity, unless your willing to give me another example besides the meaningless Obama one?

spiltteeth

2nd September 2009, 05:42

Then you'd be happy to tell us what they mean?

If the concept of being has no meaning, then neither does the concept of Perfect Being, Supreme Being, Ground of Being, etc. All of which you've said god is, and if those are meaningless, as you confess, then so too is "god". As for god being relational in nature, yes, you've said it, except you've yet to explain what exactly this means. If god is a being, as you claim, then it cannot be a relation, and if it is a relation, then it cannot have any of the attributes that you attribute to it such as personhood, etc. Also, what relation is god?

Well, actually it is since you've brought it up in a futile attempts to defend your metaphysical nonsense, by trying to claim that it is no more grounded than science. I challenged this, and you've yet to provide a response. So either withdraw your claim that metaphysical terms are as empty as scientific ones, or respond.

Then you'd be happy to tell us what they mean?

Happily!
the one Supreme Being :
eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, they mean the one being who is supposed to possess all those properties

The most Perfect Being,
the being who is alleged to be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent

love,
Most people know what you mean by love to the extent that love exists.

the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything,
intends to thereby refer to the entity without which it is supposed that nothing could exist. Put another way, I mean the entity whose existence is supposedly necessary for existence itself.

personal,
by which is meant -and we can easily imagine it - to refer to a being who is able to perform any act that is both conceivable and compatible with all of his other essential characteristics, who has all and only true propositions as beliefs, so it is hard to see to what sort of entity, if not one of a personal ilk, we might ascribe those properties.

omnipotent,
the being who supposedly can perform any act that is both conceivable and compatible with all of the beings other essential characteristics

omniscient,
omniscience as the property of possessing maximal propositional knowledge

omnibenevolent,
loves everyone maximally, ie the being that always does everything in it's power to protect everyone’s best long-term interests (out of concern for others’ welfare)”
which means the being who performs that act which ultimately brings about a greater degree of happiness (or comfort, well-being, etc.) among people generally than could any other act, then god does that which is in everyone’s best long-term interests.”
( Obviously while pleasing most people does not immediately please everyone, in bringing about the greatest possible measure of (overall) happiness it ipso facto creates the ideal world, and the creation of that world is certainly in everyone’s best long-term interests whether he realizes it or not.)

nonmaterial,
property - bodiless

eternal
The being that is suposed to persist forever throughout time.

creator and ruler of the universe.

Everyone understands perfectly well what it means to create something and a cosmos is just a very big thing (or collection of things). Likewise with the concept of ruling something.

If the concept of being has no meaning, then neither does the concept of Perfect Being, Supreme Being, Ground of Being, etc. All of which you've said god is, and if those are meaningless, as you confess, then so too is "god". As for god being relational in nature, yes, you've said it, except you've yet to explain what exactly this means. If god is a being, as you claim, then it cannot be a relation, and if it is a relation, then it cannot have any of the attributes that you attribute to it such as personhood, etc. Also, what relation is god?

Well, I wasn't using being as a concept, as I thought you were attempting to, or else I'd just change it to 'agent,' I've been using being as exist.

I've never given the term god the attribute of personhood.

It can only be known be relational attributes, not primary properties.

What relation is god? Not sure what you mean by that.

Well, actually it is since you've brought it up in a futile attempts to defend your metaphysical nonsense, by trying to claim that it is no more grounded than science. I challenged this, and you've yet to provide a response. So either withdraw your claim that metaphysical terms are as empty as scientific ones, or respond.[/QUOTE]

Thats pretty obvious. god is an empty term because it can only be defined in reference to other self referential empty terms.
In this sense, all sentences within science that contain the terms matter or energy are also meaningless.
I;ve already said :
"it is possible to make meaningful statements about matter and energy, and test them, though it remains impossible to define them without referencing them. We might say that matter is what possesses inertia, but inertia is defined in terms of matter."

So we can make meaningful statements about matter and energy, but can you tell me what you mean by the actual term 'energy' and 'matter' without referencing empty self-referencing terms? I challenge this! Challenge Rosa too while your at it....he won't give me an answer!

Now, if you've completely misunderstood this entire thread, you might think we are trying to figure out if my def of god is true or false, which would involve empiricism. We are discussing weather the term god can be used in a meaningful sentence, not weather or not that sentence is true or false.

So.....empirical considerations are completely irrelevant.

And the fact that you've even mentioned empiricism would lead me to believe your completely confused!

Hyacinth

2nd September 2009, 06:14

If by "God", we mean the Orthodox Christian understanding of what little is known about the Transcendent God, then God is the Source of Existence, by virtue of which, God is beyond Existence. God does not exist in the same way I exist, or my computer exists, or the chair I'm sitting on exists, since God is the Source of their Existence. We can't put God in the set of "Things That Exist", since (a) by the definition of God, the things in that set owe their existence to God and (b) God is not a "thing" since, by definition, God gave "thingness" to all things.
In what way does god exist then? What other sorts of ways of existing are there? I know what it means for a chair to exist—I can sit on it—or that my computer exists—I'm typing on it. And how exactly is god the source of their coming into being? What's "thingness"? You're still employing meaningless meataphysical terms, since you're treating—like so many metaphysicians—existence as a property that something can lack, and existence isn't a property.

Hyacinth

2nd September 2009, 06:27

Thats pretty obvious. god is an empty term because it can only be defined in reference to other self referential empty terms.
In this sense, all sentences within science that contain the terms matter or energy are also meaningless.
That would be true if it were the case that technical scientific terms were defined self-referentially and with reference to other meaningless terms. Which they're not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

"it is possible to make meaningful statements about matter and energy, and test them, though it remains impossible to define them without referencing them. We might say that matter is what possesses inertia, but inertia is defined in terms of matter."
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
If these terms were empty, i.e. meaningless, then it wouldn't be possible to make meaningful statements about matter and energy, nor test them. As we can make meaningful statements about matter and energy, and test them, they hence aren't meaningless, i.e. empty.

So we can make meaningful statements about matter and energy, but can you tell me what you mean by the actual term 'energy' and 'matter' without referencing empty self-referencing terms? I challenge this! Challenge Rosa too while your at it....he won't give me an answer!
Happily!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Now, if you've completely misunderstood this entire thread, you might think we are trying to figure out if my def of god is true or false, which would involve empiricism. We are discussing weather the term god can be used in a meaningful sentence, not weather or not that sentence is true or false.
I nowhere brought up empiricism, I merely pointed out that there is a difference by virtue of which technical scientific terms are meaningful, whereas metaphysical terms meaningless. This was in response to your assertion that the two were equivalent.

spiltteeth

2nd September 2009, 06:50

That would be true if it were the case that technical scientific terms were defined self-referentially and with reference to other meaningless terms. Which they're not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
If these terms were empty, i.e. meaningless, then it wouldn't be possible to make meaningful statements about matter and energy, nor test them. As we can make meaningful statements about matter and energy, and test them, they hence aren't meaningless, i.e. empty.

Happily!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

I nowhere brought up empiricism, I merely pointed out that there is a difference by virtue of which technical scientific terms are meaningful, whereas metaphysical terms meaningless. This was in response to your assertion that the two were equivalent.

[QUOTE=Hyacinth;1534880]That would be true if it were the case that technical scientific terms were defined self-referentially and with reference to other meaningless terms. Which they're not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

I'm afraid I don;t see how this wiki page contradicts what I've said, indeed with its different definitions of matter -strange matter, dark matter, anti-matter - it seems to complicate things.
It seems to me matter is defined by mass, which is defined by energy etc

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
If these terms were empty, i.e. meaningless, then it wouldn't be possible to make meaningful statements about matter and energy, nor test them. As we can make meaningful statements about matter and energy, and test them, they hence aren't meaningless, i.e. empty.

Thats not true. I can say 'god' refers to a being that is my shoe and will grant wishes instantaneously, we can test this yes? By making a wish to my shoe. Does this now make god a meaningful term?
It's perfectly possible to make meaningful statement about things that can only be defined in reference to each other. The statement would not be empty, as long as its within context.

Happily!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Again, perhaps I'm slow, but yr going to have to cite the specifics in these wiki articles. I have read them and find nothing to contradict what I have said.

I nowhere brought up empiricism, I merely pointed out that there is a difference by virtue of which technical scientific terms are meaningful, whereas metaphysical terms meaningless. This was in response to your assertion that the two were equivalent.

I never said the two were equivalent. There are not equivalent, but not by virtue of one being meaningful and the other not, as we have been using the word meaning. To talk about 'testing' something, just so you know, involves empiricism.
and you said :

T
echnical scientific terms can be given a sense insofar as they are operationalizable. Scientists can, for the purpose of a theory, stipulate what these terms will mean (within the theory) in a technical sense by providing us with some criteria for their application; in the instance of many such technical terms the criteria will be some measurement or other.

We are not, as Rosa has made quite clear, referring to stipulative definitions.
I've given plenty of Criteria, and since we aren't talking about the validity of the terms, I really can't imagine how measurement or operationalization has anything to do with this thread.

spiltteeth

2nd September 2009, 07:03

In what way does god exist then? What other sorts of ways of existing are there? I know what it means for a chair to exist—I can sit on it—or that my computer exists—I'm typing on it. And how exactly is god the source of their coming into being? What's "thingness"? You're still employing meaningless meataphysical terms, since you're treating—like so many metaphysicians—existence as a property that something can lack, and existence isn't a property.

I see. So when yr not typing on your computer it ceases to exist, same with your chair when yr not sitting on it. What happens when you leave the room? I don;t think you know what it means for these things to exist at all.
The above statement has nothing to do with my argument, I already gave you what I think most theists mean, in plain english, even if its empirically false.
I posted the above in the gesture of complete intellectual honesty.
Now, the questions you ask has nothing to do with this thread, and as I've said it was not posted to be relevant, but I would refer you to the works of Heidigaar for definitions of "thingness" and about the different forms of existence, since these are phenomenological problems, which I think you are looking for scientific answers to....

Hyacinth

2nd September 2009, 07:54

I see. So when yr not typing on your computer it ceases to exist, same with your chair when yr not sitting on it. What happens when you leave the room? I don;t think you know what it means for these things to exist at all.
No, clearly you don't, if you make such inane statements in response.

Now, the questions you ask has nothing to do with this thread, and as I've said it was not posted to be relevant, but I would refer you to the works of Heidigaar for definitions of "thingness" and about the different forms of existence, since these are phenomenological problems, which I think you are looking for scientific answers to....
My question has everything to do with the topic at hand, since the issue is whether or not the definition of god that you've offered makes sense.

I've had the distinct displeasure of reading Heidegger, and am not masochistic enough to go through that again. These aren't phenomenological problems, but rather, like phenomenology itself, conceptual confusions.

spiltteeth

2nd September 2009, 18:08

Hyacinth;1534929]No, clearly you don't, if you make such inane statements in response.

Ok then. I;m glad we both are clear that I don't think you 'know' in what way your computer or chair exists. Thanks for clearing that up.

My question has everything to do with the topic at hand, since the issue is whether or not the definition of god that you've offered makes sense.

As I said, this was not a def*of god I offered for relevance or to defend. Rosa will coyly say thing like, 'I'm not committed' to terms like matter and energy, will not engage my challenges etc
I just gave the def my religion holds, to be fully forth coming.
For purposes of weather or not 'god' is an empty term -regardless if it is valid or true or correct or operational - I have given you my meaning.
If you wish to comment please engage that.

I've had the distinct displeasure of reading Heidegger, and am not masochistic enough to go through that again. These aren't phenomenological problems, but rather, like phenomenology itself, conceptual confusions.

I think Rosa would disagree with it being 'conceptual' problems but apart what I and he/she have been discussing, because it has not been brought up, and not in regard your question of 'thingness,' if someone claimed that God could be understood via rationality or science then indeed this would involve conceptual confusions. So far I haven't made this claim nor has Roba accused me of such.

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd September 2009, 18:17

Spiltteeth, I am going to be busy again over the next few days, so I can't reply to you until the weekend.

What little time I have until then I propose to devote to slapping the dialectical mystics about the place, in Philosophy --, and we have at the moment a particularly dim proponent of that 'theory' over there, who has been absent from this board for well over two years, but was back then widely regarded as perhaps the worst arguer anyone has ever seen at RevLeft.

He has not noticeably improved with time...

spiltteeth

2nd September 2009, 19:30

spiltteeth

3rd September 2009, 05:52

Hyacinth, I really don't understand the importance you attach to a term being 'operationalized' or being able to be tested or empirically examined. Does this make the term more rational?
I don't think you understand the nature of science or scientific terms.
Why privilege the data about Reality that arrives solely via empirical operations (and seems to form the foundations of your and possibly Rosa's atheism,-ie attesting that there can be no God as God cannot be proved through experiment) as deﬁnitional of what is rational?

This preference of deﬁneing rationality this way bears little conception to how science actually works in practice. How many years was it that Einstein’s Law of Special Relativity was accepted on the basis of belief before any experimental evidence was proffered to support this theory? Today, in the conﬂuence of general relativity and quantum theory, the majority of theoretical physicists subscribe to string theory, a theory that has no foreseeable means for experimental veriﬁcation.
Knowing about reality cannot be limited by rationality as only determined empirically, either by the secular materialists or by Christians who use this epistemological version of what is rational to promote the status quo.
It's a ruling class tule and very elitist.
Look at something that has been at issue for at least the past 35 years :The deniers of global warming have consistently claimed that the theory behind global warming has not been ‘scientiﬁcally proven’ (i.e. is not rational or not rational enough).

There is an ethics of receptivity concerning what we can say about reality.

No new data is allowed that might upset the construct reality of the predominant capitalist (or socialist or whatever is in current ‘rationalist’ vogue) worldview.

Look at reality from the study of quantum physics, where our understanding of nonlocality and other aspects of the quantum world indicate that science “is far from yielding an assured access to ʻthe Realʼ” (i.e. independent reality as opposed to an empirical reality understood by science and described by mathematics, validating Kantʼs claim that the purpose of science is not a knowledge of reality but that of phenomena, since you once brought Kant up by the by)

Read yr Focault and you'll see how science is used by the ruling class to oppress and control. After all, scientists and doctors have access to *THE* truth, just as medieval Catholics once claimed...

I firmly believe that by claiming a monopoly on access to reality and claiming the right to define what's rational by yr own standards is thoroughly elitist, counter-revolutionary, and will only lead to an oppression similar to the religious oppression you claim to fight against.

I adress this to you Haycinth, and Rosa as well.

Collectivism

4th September 2009, 22:41

HISTORY OF XTIANITY:

1. Jesus the proto-Marxist rebels against jewish corruption and individualism, is executed.
2. Paul distorts the original message and uses it to support racism, homophobia, sexism, patriachy and other discrimination. 99.99% of modern xtian scum support this.
3. Christians take over and commit the worst genocides in history.

Hyacinth

4th September 2009, 22:58

Hyacinth, I really don't understand the importance you attach to a term being 'operationalized' or being able to be tested or empirically examined. Does this make the term more rational?
This was brought up in response to your allegation that scientific terms are as empty as metaphysical ones. Setting aside the issue of whether or not these terms are capable of being defined predicatively (though I would contest your claim that they cannot), inasmuch as they are operationalizable we know what it means for a proposition containing them to be true. Scientific propositions say something about the world because they exclude certain possible states of affairs. This is to be contrasted with metaphysical "propositions" which fail to say anything about the world precisely because they exclude nothing, in part because they are not operationalizable.

Also, I'm not clear on what you mean by the last question. I don't know what it is for a term to be rational or irrational. A person, an act, a desire, a belief, etc. can all be rational or irrational, but a term?

I don't think you understand the nature of science or scientific terms.
Care to enlighten me then?

Why privilege the data about Reality that arrives solely via empirical operations (and seems to form the foundations of your and possibly Rosa's atheism,-ie attesting that there can be no God as God cannot be proved through experiment) as deﬁnitional of what is rational?
How else exactly are we suppose to go about acquiring knowledge of the world? Armchair speculation? The resounding, and continued, failure of 2,000+ years of metaphysics should give us at least some reason to doubt the viability of armchair speculation.

This preference of deﬁneing rationality this way bears little conception to how science actually works in practice. How many years was it that Einstein’s Law of Special Relativity was accepted on the basis of belief before any experimental evidence was proffered to support this theory? Today, in the conﬂuence of general relativity and quantum theory, the majority of theoretical physicists subscribe to string theory, a theory that has no foreseeable means for experimental veriﬁcation.
I'm not defining rationality; I didn't bring it up, you did. Also, empirical adequacy is only one criteria for the acceptance of a scientific theory, we have others, such as utility, parsimony, etc.

Re: string theory; there are physicists who are quite critical of it. And, for all the faults of strong theory, including among them no foreseeable means of verification or falsification, strong theories are at least in principle verifiable and falsifiable—that is, they exclude certain states of affairs from obtaining if they are true. Which is still far more than metaphysics.

Knowing about reality cannot be limited by rationality as only determined empirically, either by the secular materialists or by Christians who use this epistemological version of what is rational to promote the status quo.
Why not? And what's the alternative?

And my contention isn't epistemological as such, it isn't that we cannot know anything about the world except through experience, rather, what I maintain is that metaphysical "propositions" say nothing about the world because they do not exclude any possible states of affairs. Metaphysical "propositions" are compatible with any state of affairs in the world, and, as such, say nothing about the world.

It's a ruling class tule and very elitist.
I fail to see how any of these ideas are ruling class. As for elitist, I suppose that metaphysicists would say so, as we refuse to admit their ramblings as sensible. Then again, I don't think the standards of sense are particularly high, so we can hardly be faulted for their failure to meet even such low standards.

Look at something that has been at issue for at least the past 35 years :The deniers of global warming have consistently claimed that the theory behind global warming has not been ‘scientiﬁcally proven’ (i.e. is not rational or not rational enough).
So? I fail to see your point.

There is an ethics of receptivity concerning what we can say about reality.
I'm afraid I've lost you, I haven't a clue what you mean by that.

No new data is allowed that might upset the construct reality of the predominant capitalist (or socialist or whatever is in current ‘rationalist’ vogue) worldview.
Indeed, ruling class ideas are a priori dogmatism. Likewise for metaphysics.

Look at reality from the study of quantum physics, where our understanding of nonlocality and other aspects of the quantum world indicate that science “is far from yielding an assured access to ʻthe Realʼ” (i.e. independent reality as opposed to an empirical reality understood by science and described by mathematics, validating Kantʼs claim that the purpose of science is not a knowledge of reality but that of phenomena, since you once brought Kant up by the by)
All well and good, but what does any of this have to do with anything I've said? I never brought up "the Real" or anything of the sort.

Read yr Focault and you'll see how science is used by the ruling class to oppress and control. After all, scientists and doctors have access to *THE* truth, just as medieval Catholics once claimed...
Indeed, I don't deny that. But, again, I fail to see what any of this has anything to do with what I've said. The truth or falsity of metaphysical "propositions" isn't at issue, rather what is being questioned is their sense. It isn't the vocation of scientists to refute metaphysicians, since the latter don't say anything, and, by extension, don't say anything that is in conflict with scientific theories.

I firmly believe that by claiming a monopoly on access to reality and claiming the right to define what's rational by yr own standards is thoroughly elitist, counter-revolutionary, and will only lead to an oppression similar to the religious oppression you claim to fight against.
All well and good, but once again off the mark, as this has nothing to do with anything I've said. And that metaphysical statements are nonsense resulting from the horrendous misuse of language is plain for everyone to see.

spiltteeth

5th September 2009, 02:27

This was brought up in response to your allegation that scientific terms are as empty as metaphysical ones. Setting aside the issue of whether or not these terms are capable of being defined predicatively (though I would contest your claim that they cannot), inasmuch as they are operationalizable we know what it means for a proposition containing them to be true. Scientific propositions say something about the world because they exclude certain possible states of affairs. This is to be contrasted with metaphysical "propositions" which fail to say anything about the world precisely because they exclude nothing, in part because they are not operationalizable.

Also, I'm not clear on what you mean by the last question. I don't know what it is for a term to be rational or irrational. A person, an act, a desire, a belief, etc. can all be rational or irrational, but a term?

Care to enlighten me then?

How else exactly are we suppose to go about acquiring knowledge of the world? Armchair speculation? The resounding, and continued, failure of 2,000+ years of metaphysics should give us at least some reason to doubt the viability of armchair speculation.

I'm not defining rationality; I didn't bring it up, you did. Also, empirical adequacy is only one criteria for the acceptance of a scientific theory, we have others, such as utility, parsimony, etc.

Re: string theory; there are physicists who are quite critical of it. And, for all the faults of strong theory, including among them no foreseeable means of verification or falsification, strong theories are at least in principle verifiable and falsifiable—that is, they exclude certain states of affairs from obtaining if they are true. Which is still far more than metaphysics.

Why not? And what's the alternative?

And my contention isn't epistemological as such, it isn't that we cannot know anything about the world except through experience, rather, what I maintain is that metaphysical "propositions" say nothing about the world because they do not exclude any possible states of affairs. Metaphysical "propositions" are compatible with any state of affairs in the world, and, as such, say nothing about the world.

I fail to see how any of these ideas are ruling class. As for elitist, I suppose that metaphysicists would say so, as we refuse to admit their ramblings as sensible. Then again, I don't think the standards of sense are particularly high, so we can hardly be faulted for their failure to meet even such low standards.

So? I fail to see your point.

I'm afraid I've lost you, I haven't a clue what you mean by that.

Indeed, ruling class ideas are a priori dogmatism. Likewise for metaphysics.

All well and good, but what does any of this have to do with anything I've said? I never brought up "the Real" or anything of the sort.

Indeed, I don't deny that. But, again, I fail to see what any of this has anything to do with what I've said. The truth or falsity of metaphysical "propositions" isn't at issue, rather what is being questioned is their sense. It isn't the vocation of scientists to refute metaphysicians, since the latter don't say anything, and, by extension, don't say anything that is in conflict with scientific theories.

All well and good, but once again off the mark, as this has nothing to do with anything I've said. And that metaphysical statements are nonsense resulting from the horrendous misuse of language is plain for everyone to see.

Well, if yr talking about metaphysics in general then I'd have to say I agree that metaphysical terms don't say anything about the world, rather they say something about our relationship to the world. I don't posit metaphysics opposing science, or use it in a scientific fashion. I mean, what the hell is dasein? Can you look at it through a microscope? But thats not what metaphysics are about. I've read a bit of metaphysics and have found zero answers, but what I have found are different ways to relate to a question or problem.
So, when I was talking about God being relational in nature I meant instead of the self deciding to believe in God, or not, early Christians (and their Jewish forbearers and I believe my Orthodox Church retains a bit of this) understood that their persons, their selves, were not deﬁned via interiority, but by relationally; through their relationality with God, with neighbor, and with their environment. There was no existent self independent of these relationships. And, pre-modernity, they understood that “God is not bound by any external rational truths” Thus, ethically, the only thing that constituted Reality was how one behaved relationally.
Nowadays Christianity, under modernity, allows a personal God that can be moulded exactly as each self desires, hence you get a VERY ugly hateful god under Pat Robinson.
In modern times, reality is apprehended primarily in terms of a humanocentric rationality that reveals the “real workings” of the universe bringing salvation through the ingenuity of humankindʼs technical achievements. This progress through human rationality is the telos of history. This ʻmodernʼ description of reality collapsed as a result of the First and Second World Wars, the Holocaust, the development and use of the atom bomb and subsequent nuclear arms race, and the environmental crisis which destroyed forever the concept of linear technical progress (“things are getting better and better every day”) fueled by human ʻrationalityʼ (e.g. under what form of rationality was the Holocaust ʻconstructedʼ and 125 million humans murdered in the wars of the 20th century?).
Today, the self exists as an autonomous, self-directed being, entirely constituted through the interiority of the person.
In pre-modernity, the self is only constituted through an interior relationality with God. The person does not really exist outside this relationship. (Likewise, pre-modern reality was believed to be an advancement on the Biblical where Reality is described in terms of a historical telos leading toward salvation revealed to a chosen people, Israel, by their god, YHWH. Persons still do not have a ʻself.ʼ ʻPersonhoodʼ is constituted entirely through oneʼs relationship with their family
and tribe.)
As to why rational apprehension ought not be given a privileged position, I would again point towards Global Warming. The science is 35 yrs old. The damage is done. CEO's fear for their children's future. Science continues to give us more data to confirm the horror we are in for. So....why is nothing done? I've read a few psych papers, they talk about denial etc But here I personally would refer to metaphysics to understand how we are relating to the data, and how we can change our relationship with this data.
Now I have my own opinions, I might be completely wrong, but I believe it is because (1) misunderstandings of what constitutes rational thought that devises construct limitations on what new data can be incorporated into one’s understanding of reality at any given time; (2) the construction of self as the reality perceiving subject that relies on the big Other to validate the self’s experience; and (3) an assumption regarding the apperception of reality that splits thinking from acting. That is, the self is allowed to perceive itself as possessing a certain attribute if it ‘thinks’ in a certain way. How the self acts either doesn’t enter in to affect such thinking or is relegated to immateriality in the assessment of one’s self-disclosure (e.g. one’s self perception of ‘Christian’ religiosity is over-determined by what one self referentially thinks of one’s Christian-ness versus how one objectively acts to exhibit Christian virtues in one’s everyday behavior, like 'I'm a good Christian is a conservative or republican or supports torture vs how you actually interact and relate to people on a day to day basis etc). For these above reasons, neither the secular materialist nor the good Christian is able to process the new data.
Anyway, I see metaphysics not as true or false, but as a potentially useful way to relate to reality.

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th September 2009, 13:14

Spiltteeth:

Your not to good at challenges huh? I've given you two and you refuse to answer or engage in them.

The first 'challenge' was based on your alleged 'summary' of my views, which wasn't a summary at all, but an invention of your own fevered and mystically-compromised brain, to which 'challenge' I pointed out that I would not respond to a figment of your own imagination. The second was yet another attempt by you to deflect attention from the fact that you cannot tell us what 'god' is. So, your 'challenges' are little more than transparent delaying tactics by you. [However, on this, see below.]

My original challenge has yet to be answered: tell us in non-empty terms what 'god' is.

You are the one that brought Obama up.

Indeed, I did, and you responded with this desperate reply

I am intrigued by your Obama comment. So, what if I ask what do you mean by "man." In fact I challenge you to do it, without using empty terms.
Unless you are using meaningless sentences...

To which I made the perfectly reasonable response:

Well, you might think this could help you, but it can't, for if we cannot give content to the word "man", then "god" stands no chance.

In which case, if "man" is an empty term, then so is "god", only much more so -- since we have some inkling what a man is, but we haven't the faintest idea what 'god' is, and neither have you.

Now you add this:

And you don't seem to know yourself, you brought up an example -Obama, I am telling you your example is meaningless, because it has an empty term, namely 'man.'

And

Now I will concede you are correct -in fact I have several times - as long as you are willing to maintain your intellectual integrity and avoid similar empty terms in your posts.

And:

So, then I tell you, many of your sentences in many of your posts are similarly meaningless because they contain empty terms. Correct?

And

So, will you answer any of my challenges or do you only dish them out, and when the consequences of your own position threaten to come undone you bail?

You are in the exact same position as I am, since you use similar empty terms all the time! In fact, in the very post above you used at least one -man!

So, if your claim is that ordinary words are in fact empty terms, including "empty" and "term", then it is you, my dear mystic, who is in trouble, for your 'challenge' is empty by default (including the term "challenge"). Now, my challenge to you is not based on this self-destructive premise, so it does not implode like yours does.

If you want to go down that route, then all discussion must end, which is OK for me since that would mean that, if all terms are empty, you cannot after all tell us what "god" means, which was my original allegation. So, it is in my interests not to rise to your challenge, since my silence on this score sinks your case all the quicker. On the other hand, it is not in your interest to fail to rise to mine.

Odd though this might seem, I can live with that.

I keep asking what a meaning of god would look like,

for instance 'god is meaningful if....'

I do not recall you asking such a question -- but even if you did, it's not up to me to help you.

Can I suggest you pray for help?

Looks like you could do with a miracle, here...

Now I've said IF your challenge is to give meaning to a term -god- without referencing matter, energy, or substance than I can't.
I am saying -in plain english- that this is what your challenge amounts to since matter, energy, and substance are all empty terms.

Well, I have told you several times that I am not denying you the use of anything you like, but until we know what "god" means, we still have no idea what you are banging on about, and neither have you.

Nor have I claimed that the words "matter", "energy" and "substance" are empty, only that when you use them, they are no help to you at all -- since you have to use them in via negativa to help you tell us what 'god' is.

But, even if this were not the case, as I have also pointed out to you many times, you can describe 'god' negatively or positively until you are blue in the face, that will hot help you one iota. And that is because we still have no idea what it is you are attempting to describe when you say this or that of 'god', and neither have you, and neither has anyone else.

Once more, this is the insurmountable obstacle that stands in the way of all theists because of the totally unique nature of 'god'.

IF god is a meaningless term THEN every term that references matter, energy, or substance must also be empty.

I do not see that this follows. You need to justify this move.

Hence I did say :

Ok, so your position is this :

"God is an empty term if you exclude personal significance, evaluative input, stipulative meanings, all references to matter, energy, or substance, and definitions.

That is true. I concede your point. Bravo."

Once more, I did not 'exclude' such things (and I'd like to see you find a quote where I did). You can use what you like, the result will be no different.

Now I've asked you 3 things none of which I expect an honest answer too.

Well, you'd know all about answers which are far from 'honest' (see below).

Unless your going to 'put me in my place'.

No need to, for if the New Testament is correct, you are off to 'hell' for telling lies and for using abusive language.

THen I ask you : what would a thing that cannot be referenced by energy, matter, or substance look like? So I know.
You tried the Obama thang, then...quit?

Once more, and for the twentieth time, I am not disallowing you the use of whatever you can lay your mystically-compromised hands upon.

Sure, quit if you can't help us other than by alleging that all terms are empty (including "all", "terms" and "empty") since that will confirm my prediction.

Or I could try yr own bullshit : I might be inclined to answer if you could tell me what you mean by 'man'.

Since I, at least, have intellectual integrity, I'll tell you my church's position

Well, your 'intellectual integrity' allowed you to post this smear (a clear indication of how desperate you are becoming):

Some of you may know our good Comrade Rosa Lichtenstein.

After interacting with her and reviewing her posts I have come to the conclusion that Rosa is not a person.

She is an AI computer program.

Now, I don't now much about AI but I've been told in Japan there have been AI programs that have taken college courses over the internet, corresponded with professors via email, set up their own myspace accounts -even been published!

I base my conclusions on :

1) AI is not able to speak from a place of gender. Neither can Rosa, she/he is gender neutral.

2) Computers are unable to understand certain Dialectical thoughts, are think dialectically. Rosa can only understand basic rational thought. In fact, she even has a sticky on Anti-dialectics, which would make sense since she/he is unable to process dialectical thought.
*(below is an article on this)

3) Rosa can not process complex metaphors are conceptual puns, only basic word play.

4) Rosa can not process points made presented by way of poetry or non-rational thoughts.

5) Rosa posts a ridiculous amount, perhaps a human could too, but she does not post in chit-chat, and when she does post it is usually with foot-notes and long responses.

6) Rosa has no social skills, no means to interact on a human basis.

7) When faced with 'her' own logical inconsistency 'she' merely relies on various insults which 'she' repeats with some consistency.

8) Revleft is the perfect forum to test such an AI program, to give it the opportunity to self learn dialectics, since many of our comrades are dialectical materialists.

9)'She'he' has no recognizable human attributes except her insults which can be predicted and really only hits one note of one-dimensional of interiority.

More here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1536118&postcount=1

And you expect to be taken seriously after this irrational, personal attack?

From an Orthodox perspective, the unqualified phrase "God exists" is in fact, meaningless as you assert.
If by "God", we mean the Orthodox Christian understanding of what little is known about the Transcendent God, then God is the Source of Existence, by virtue of which, God is beyond Existence. God does not exist in the same way I exist, or my computer exists, or the chair I'm sitting on exists, since God is the Source of their Existence. We can't put God in the set of "Things That Exist", since (a) by the definition of God, the things in that set owe their existence to God and (b) God is not a "thing" since, by definition, God gave "thingness" to all things.

Unfortunately, the above is still devoid of sense, since you have yet to tell us what the dickens you're are talking about when you use the word "god".

You seem to not be able to grasp this very simple point.

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo gonna...

The words of serious poster --, I think not.

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo gonna answer any of my queries, or do you only answer questions that don't make you look silly??

As if this particular comment of yours, plus the lies you tell about me above, do not do a rather effective job in this regard on you, my desperate friend.

Indeed, I can take lessons in stupidity from you.

Which choice do you think I am predicting, based on your character or lack thereof?

Whether your 'prediction' is correct or not, we know from past experience that you will throw up yet more smokescreens, pull yet more ploys (and post yet more smears) and attempt yet more delaying tactics to put off the evil day where you have to confront the ugly fact that the object of your worship is no different from nothing at all, and possibly worse.

Oh, wait, I forgot you do not answer those types of questions or seek clarity, unless your willing to give me another example besides the meaningless Obama one?

I fear you are in no position to point fingers, since you do not even know who Obama is.:lol:

spiltteeth

6th September 2009, 20:34

Spiltteeth:

The first 'challenge' was based on your alleged 'summary' of my views, which wasn't a summary at all, but an invention of your own fevered and mystically-compromised brain, to which 'challenge' I pointed out that I would not respond to a figment of your own imagination. The second was yet another attempt by you to deflect attention from the fact that you cannot tell us what 'god' is. So, your 'challenges' are little more than transparent delaying tactics by you. [However, on this, see below.]

My original challenge has yet to be answered: tell us in non-empty terms what 'god' is.

Indeed, I did, and you responded with this desperate reply

To which I made the perfectly reasonable response:

Now you add this:

And

And:

And

So, if your claim is that ordinary words are in fact empty terms, including "empty" and "term", then it is you, my dear mystic, who is in trouble, for your 'challenge' is empty by default (including the term "challenge"). Now, my challenge to you is not based on this self-destructive premise, so it does not implode like yours does.

If you want to go down that route, then all discussion must end, which is OK for me since that would mean that, if all terms are empty, you cannot after all tell us what "god" means, which was my original allegation. So, it is in my interests not to rise to your challenge, since my silence on this score sinks your case all the quicker. On the other hand, it is not in your interest to fail to rise to mine.

Odd though this might seem, I can live with that.

I do not recall you asking such a question -- but even if you did, it's not up to me to help you.

Can I suggest you pray for help?

Looks like you could do with a miracle, here...

Well, I have told you several times that I am not denying you the use of anything you like, but until we know what "god" means, we still have no idea what you are banging on about, and neither have you.

Nor have I claimed that the words "matter", "energy" and "substance" are empty, only that when you use them, they are no help to you at all -- since you have to use them in via negativa to help you tell us what 'god' is.

But, even if this were not the case, as I have also pointed out to you many times, you can describe 'god' negatively or positively until you are blue in the face, that will hot help you one iota. And that is because we still have no idea what it is you are attempting to describe when you say this or that of 'god', and neither have you, and neither has anyone else.

Once more, this is the insurmountable obstacle that stands in the way of all theists because of the totally unique nature of 'god'.

I do not see that this follows. You need to justify this move.

Once more, I did not 'exclude' such things (and I'd like to see you find a quote where I did). You can use what you like, the result will be no different.

Well, you'd know all about answers which are far from 'honest' (see below).

No need to, for if the New Testament is correct, you are off to 'hell' for telling lies and for using abusive language.

Once more, and for the twentieth time, I am not disallowing you the use of whatever you can lay your mystically-compromised hands upon.

Sure, quit if you can't help us other than by alleging that all terms are empty (including "all", "terms" and "empty") since that will confirm my prediction.

Well, your 'intellectual integrity' allowed you to post this smear (a clear indication of how desperate you are becoming):

More here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1536118&postcount=1

And you expect to be taken seriously after this irrational, personal attack?

Unfortunately, the above is still devoid of sense, since you have yet to tell us what the dickens you're are talking about when you use the word "god".

You seem to not be able to grasp this very simple point.

The words of serious poster --, I think not.

As if this particular comment of yours, plus the lies you tell about me above, do not do a rather effective job in this regard on you, my desperate friend.

Indeed, I can take lessons in stupidity from you.

Whether your 'prediction' is correct or not, we know from past experience that you will throw up yet more smokescreens, pull yet more ploys (and post yet more smears) and attempt yet more delaying tactics to put off the evil day where you have to confront the ugly fact that the object of your worship is no different from nothing at all, and possibly worse.

I fear you are in no position to point fingers, since you do not even know who Obama is.:lol:

So, it is in my interests not to rise to your challenge, since my silence on this score sinks your case all the quicker.

See, this is what I mean by intellectual honesty - this whole time you have been arguing to be right. It is not in your interest? So you dismiss all data or arguments that are 'not in your interest.' ? This an entirely bizarre statement that I have never seen before used by any intellectual - but I am the one who is desperate?
By this one admission who have likened yourself to the pedophiliac priest who will not divulge or engage certain information because it is not in the church's best interest.
And here we have your ground for evaluating things, not based on objectivity, but on weather it deserves your interest!
You have no interest in truth, just being right, as a small child.

So, since if we continue I might lose my 'right' to believe in god -which gives my a teddy-bear comfort - it is not in my interest to engage in anyone who might disabuse me of my illusions....this is reasonable yes?

I fear you are in no position to point fingers, since you do not even know who Obama is

Yes, we know, people can't point fingers unless they are correct 100% of the time. But here your confused since it is you who brought up Obama and refuses to tell me.

I can't see how the AI comment has anything to do with 'god' being an empty term but since you won't answer my challenges...because it doesn't boost yr ego...I assume this is a desperate measure.
It is not slander. I suspect you are an AI program. There are at least two other sites that do as well. Firstly, it is a suspicion, but even if I said it was a definite fact it would be slander only if it were not true.
Now, since you have accused me of slander, which I take great offense too, when I have merely voiced a suspicion, I will ask you to retract the statement or at the very least prove suspicion wrong.

To conclude, if you are evaluating all posits on weather are not they meet your interest, instead of exploring their veracity and/or consequences objectively, which amounts to a petulant child's refusal to answer because they are afraid of being made to look foolish, then quite frankly you are not a "person" to be taken seriously or one with the intellectual honesty to achieve insight, since if it looks like you may be proven wrong, that data by your standards is then simply not in your interest!
An intellectual who basis there investigations on their bloated sense of self!

This is truly shameful. I regret giving you the credit for rational dialogue in the 1st place.

spiltteeth

6th September 2009, 20:37

Also, Rosa, your post is precisely what I was talking about in the above post addressed to you and Hyacinth when I spoke about an "ethics of receptivity concerning what we can say about reality."

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th September 2009, 22:25

Spiltteeth, still in smokescreen mode:

See, this is what I mean by intellectual honesty - this whole time you have been arguing to be right.

Where on earth did you get the odd idea that I have been "arguing to be right"?

It is not in your interest?

You can read; that's good to see.

So you dismiss all data or arguments that are 'not in your interest.' ?

Where do I "dismiss" anything?

This an entirely bizarre statement that I have never seen before used by any intellectual

You need to get out more.

but I am the one who is desperate?

At last something we can agree on.

Exhibit B for the prosecution:

By this one admission who have likened yourself to the paedophiliac priest who will not divulge or engage certain information because it is not in the church's best interest.

Eh?

What on earth are blathering on about?

Exhibit C:

And here we have your ground for evaluating things, not based on objectivity, but on weather it deserves your interest!
You have no interest in truth, just being right, as a small child.

And your only concern is to prevaricate, obfuscate, substitute abuse for argument, distract attention from your plight and throw up smokescreens.

So, since if we continue I might lose my 'right' to believe in god -which gives my a teddy-bear comfort - it is not in my interest to engage in anyone who might disabuse me of my illusions....this is reasonable yes?

I'm sorry, but this is yet another senseless sentence, since it contains the empty word "god".

Yes, we know, people can't point fingers unless they are correct 100% of the time. But here your confused since it is you who brought up Obama and refuses to tell me.

But, you do not know who Obama is -- if you want to know, you do not need my help, just use this resource:

http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/

Or do you need instructions on how to click on a link?

Ah, yet more lies and abuse from our allegedly 'honourable' mystic:

I can't see how the AI comment has anything to do with 'god' being an empty term but since you won't answer my challenges...because it doesn't boost yr ego...I assume this is a desperate measure.
It is not slander. I suspect you are an AI program. There are at least two other sites that do as well. Firstly, it is a suspicion, but even if I said it was a definite fact it would be slander only if it were not true.
Now, since you have accused me of slander, which I take great offence too, when I have merely voiced a suspicion, I will ask you to retract the statement or at the very least prove suspicion wrong.

You don't even know who Obama is, so I rather doubt you have the wit to know what an AI programme is.

To conclude, if you are evaluating all posits on whether are not they meet your interest, instead of exploring their veracity and/or consequences objectively, which amounts to a petulant child's refusal to answer because they are afraid of being made to look foolish, then quite frankly you are not a "person" to be taken seriously or one with the intellectual honesty to achieve insight, since if it looks like you may be proven wrong, that data by your standards is then simply not in your interest!
An intellectual who basis there investigations on their bloated sense of self!

Translated from mystic-speak, this reads: "I can't meet your challenge so I will just attack you."

This is truly shameful. I regret giving you the credit for rational dialogue in the 1st place

I accept your capitulation.

Next mystical numpty please...

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th September 2009, 22:31

Spiltteeth:

Also, Rosa, your post is precisely what I was talking about in the above post addressed to you and Hyacinth when I spoke about an "ethics of receptivity concerning what we can say about reality."

And what makes you think we are interested in what a confused mystic like you has to say about reality?

Why, you do not even know who Obama is!

red cat

6th September 2009, 22:35

Has any of you ever come across any text stating that Jesus was a black and he escaped to Kashmir after surviving crucifixion?

spiltteeth

7th September 2009, 01:07

Rosa Lichtenstein;1538552]Spiltteeth,

Where on earth did you get the odd idea that I have been "arguing to be right"?

So, it is in my interests not to rise to your challenge, since my silence on this score sinks your case all the quicker.

Where do I "dismiss" anything?

Me:

it is not in my interest to engage in anyone who might disabuse me of my illusions....this is reasonable yes?
yr answer:
None.

Me:

I'm saying matter and energy are also empty terms, according to your criteria, but they can be defined by relational attributes just like 'god' so we are able to use 'god' and 'energy' and 'matter' in a meaningful way in a sentence. Am I wrong? They also cannot be defined because it would have the empty term matter and energy. Correct?

your answer:
none

Me:

I asked you to comment on my paraphrase and point out how I was wrong, pretty simple, you haven't.

Please just cut and paste where you did this.

your explanation of why my paraphrase was inaccurate :

None

Me:

Please define "I".

Your answer :

None

Me:

Please tell me how on would define god without reference to matter, energy, or substance, since these things are also empty terms.

Your answer :

None

Me

What if you view it by way of relational attributes, like matter and energy?

Your answer :

None

me:

SO, IF -and I am not - IF I were to say what I mean by God is a dude with a mustache who is a person and lives on pluto THEN God would no longer be an empty term.

You know what I mean by person, mustache, pluto correct?

(Obviously we can then examine this empirically and say well, if he lives on pluto how does he breath, if he's a person he can't live that long etc etc BUT this is not what we are talking about.)

Your answer :

None

Me:

I am intrigued by your Obama comment. So, what if I ask what do you mean by "man." In fact I challenge you to do it, without using empty terms.

Your answer :

None

Your intellectually dishonesty : claiming I don not know who Obama was even though I never said this, I asked you.

Me :

Now I will concede you are correct -in fact I have several times - as long as you are willing to maintain your intellectual integrity and avoid similar empty terms in your posts.

Your answer :

None

Me:

what would a thing that cannot be referenced by energy, matter, or substance look like? So I know.

Your answer :

None.

Me :

I forgot you do not answer those types of questions or seek clarity, unless your willing to give me another example besides the meaningless Obama one?

Your answer:

none

You baselessly accuse me of spreading lies.
Me :
Now, since you have accused me of slander, which I take great offense too, when I have merely voiced a suspicion, I will ask you to retract the statement or at the very least prove suspicion wrong.

your
answer:

None

Me:

Why privilege the data about Reality that arrives solely via empirical operations (and seems to form the foundations of your and possibly Rosa's atheism,-ie attesting that there can be no God as God cannot be proved through experiment) as deﬁnitional of what is rational?

This preference of deﬁneing rationality this way bears little conception to how science actually works in practice. How many years was it that Einstein’s Law of Special Relativity was accepted on the basis of belief before any experimental evidence was proffered to support this theory? Today, in the conﬂuence of general relativity and quantum theory, the majority of theoretical physicists subscribe to string theory, a theory that has no foreseeable means for experimental veriﬁcation.
Knowing about reality cannot be limited by rationality as only determined empirically, either by the secular materialists or by Christians who use this epistemological version of what is rational to promote the status quo.
It's a ruling class tule and very elitist.
Look at something that has been at issue for at least the past 35 years :The deniers of global warming have consistently claimed that the theory behind global warming has not been ‘scientiﬁcally proven’ (i.e. is not rational or not rational enough).

There is an ethics of receptivity concerning what we can say about reality.

No new data is allowed that might upset the construct reality of the predominant capitalist (or socialist or whatever is in current ‘rationalist’ vogue) worldview.

Look at reality from the study of quantum physics, where our understanding of nonlocality and other aspects of the quantum world indicate that science “is far from yielding an assured access to ʻthe Realʼ” (i.e. independent reality as opposed to an empirical reality understood by science and described by mathematics, validating Kantʼs claim that the purpose of science is not a knowledge of reality but that of phenomena, since you once brought Kant up by the by)

Read yr Focault and you'll see how science is used by the ruling class to oppress and control. After all, scientists and doctors have access to *THE* truth, just as medieval Catholics once claimed...

I firmly believe that by claiming a monopoly on access to reality and claiming the right to define what's rational by yr own standards is thoroughly elitist, counter-revolutionary, and will only lead to an oppression similar to the religious oppression you claim to fight against.

I adress this to you Haycinth, and Rosa as well.

Your response :

None

Me:

when I was talking about God being relational in nature I meant instead of the self deciding to believe in God, or not, early Christians (and their Jewish forbearers and I believe my Orthodox Church retains a bit of this) understood that their persons, their selves, were not deﬁned via interiority, but by relationally; through their relationality with God, with neighbor, and with their environment. There was no existent self independent of these relationships. And, pre-modernity, they understood that “God is not bound by any external rational truths” Thus, ethically, the only thing that constituted Reality was how one behaved relationally.
Nowadays Christianity, under modernity, allows a personal God that can be moulded exactly as each self desires, hence you get a VERY ugly hateful god under Pat Robinson.
In modern times, reality is apprehended primarily in terms of a humanocentric rationality that reveals the “real workings” of the universe bringing salvation through the ingenuity of humankindʼs technical achievements. This progress through human rationality is the telos of history. This ʻmodernʼ description of reality collapsed as a result of the First and Second World Wars, the Holocaust, the development and use of the atom bomb and subsequent nuclear arms race, and the environmental crisis which destroyed forever the concept of linear technical progress (“things are getting better and better every day”) fueled by human ʻrationalityʼ (e.g. under what form of rationality was the Holocaust ʻconstructedʼ and 125 million humans murdered in the wars of the 20th century?).
Today, the self exists as an autonomous, self-directed being, entirely constituted through the interiority of the person.
In pre-modernity, the self is only constituted through an interior relationality with God. The person does not really exist outside this relationship. (Likewise, pre-modern reality was believed to be an advancement on the Biblical where Reality is described in terms of a historical telos leading toward salvation revealed to a chosen people, Israel, by their god, YHWH. Persons still do not have a ʻself.ʼ ʻPersonhoodʼ is constituted entirely through oneʼs relationship with their family
and tribe.)
As to why rational apprehension ought not be given a privileged position, I would again point towards Global Warming. The science is 35 yrs old. The damage is done. CEO's fear for their children's future. Science continues to give us more data to confirm the horror we are in for. So....why is nothing done? I've read a few psych papers, they talk about denial etc But here I personally would refer to metaphysics to understand how we are relating to the data, and how we can change our relationship with this data.
Now I have my own opinions, I might be completely wrong, but I believe it is because (1) misunderstandings of what constitutes rational thought that devises construct limitations on what new data can be incorporated into one’s understanding of reality at any given time; (2) the construction of self as the reality perceiving subject that relies on the big Other to validate the self’s experience; and (3) an assumption regarding the apperception of reality that splits thinking from acting. That is, the self is allowed to perceive itself as possessing a certain attribute if it ‘thinks’ in a certain way. How the self acts either doesn’t enter in to affect such thinking or is relegated to immateriality in the assessment of one’s self-disclosure (e.g. one’s self perception of ‘Christian’ religiosity is over-determined by what one self referentially thinks of one’s Christian-ness versus how one objectively acts to exhibit Christian virtues in one’s everyday behavior, like 'I'm a good Christian is a conservative or republican or supports torture vs how you actually interact and relate to people on a day to day basis etc). For these above reasons, neither the secular materialist nor the good Christian is able to process the new data.
Anyway, I see metaphysics not as true or false, but as a potentially useful way to relate to reality.

Your response:

None

Things an intellectually honest person would never say :

I'd be inclined to give you a clear answer to this if you answered my questions first

Can I use this?

I might be prepared to do this if you could say what this "it" is, but you can't

You need to get out more.

Ah, so instead of engaging my comment that you are intellectually dishonest you tell me to get out more, presumably there are plenty of intellectuals just as honest. Neat solution that.

If you want to go down that route, then all discussion must end,

Translated from mystic-speak, this reads: "I can't meet your challenge so I will just attack you."

Translated from delusional-speak : I can not answer any of your challenges, it would make me look even more ridiculous.

I know I'll pretend he capitulated then accept it! Let me just hallucinate the part where he does...

Since you are unable to answer any of my questions for clarifications, since you are unable to speak honestly, since you are unable to rise to my challenges, since you believe in mind-reading -saying I'm desperate etc, since you do not even know what a man is!,

I accept your capitulation.

Although I must say, you were hardly a worthy opponent. Erase mall your puerile statement about me and your post would contain perhaps 2 sentences of intelligent honest discourse.

If ever you should become self-aware you will see this.

I;m am sorry that I cannot educate you further.

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th September 2009, 02:06

Spiltteeth (yes, you guessed it, still deep in smokescreen mode):

So, it is in my interests not to rise to your challenge, since my silence on this score sinks your case all the quicker.

Well, we already know you can't.

You then list several claims you have made in previous posts -- about which I did comment, but you allege I did not -- in the vain hope that this will show I dismissed them. And yet, you still can't find a single post where I actually do dismiss them. So, most of your last post is just wasted effort.

I won't comment on the many passages you have cut and pasted since I have already done so in earlier posts, despite your allegations that I did not, except to say that you have missed yet another golden opportunity to tell us what 'god' is.

So, this was just another delaying tactic on your part.

Can I use this?

As if I could stop you.

Ah, so instead of engaging my comment that you are intellectually dishonest you tell me to get out more, presumably there are plenty of intellectuals just as honest. Neat solution that.

Well, you are the liar and fabulist here, having found that you could not rise to my challenge, so you had to post an open attack on me instead.

And, this last post of yours is more of the same: instead of telling us what all your elaborate descriptions of something you call "god" are actually about, you simply quote a series of passages that got you nowhere before, in the vain hope, perhaps, that if you repeat the same points over and over, I will meekly acquiesce.

In other words: yet another spiltteeth smokescreen.

I can not answer any of your challenges, it would make me look even more ridiculous.

Which, as we can now see, more appropriately applies to you.

I know I'll pretend he capitulated then accept it! Let me just hallucinate the part where he does...

No worries, I have already accepted your capitulation -- a capitulation amply confirmed by this rambling post of yours, wherein you can't defend your ideas, but are reduced to re-quoting passages that failed to rise to my challenge weeks ago.

Since you are unable to answer any of my questions for clarifications, since you are unable to speak honestly, since you are unable to rise to my challenges, since you believe in mind-reading -saying I'm desperate etc, since you do not even know what a man is!

Nice try turning this around on me, but none of us are fooled by these delaying tactics of yours. Either put up, or shut up.

I accept your capitulation.

Reduced to copying me I see.

Alas for you, not even this will work, for it is still plain you can't respond effectively to my challenge.

And, as I pointed out, you can't respond, so you just resort to petty abuse; here is yet more:

Although I must say, you were hardly a worthy opponent. Erase mall [eh?] your puerile statement about me and your post would contain perhaps 2 sentences of intelligent honest discourse.

Odd that: You spend an awful lot of time on an 'unworthy opponent'.

If ever you should become self-aware you will see this.

In fact, I can see it already: you rail against me, not my arguments, since you can't respond to them, but have to kick up a cloud of dust to try to hide that fact, The irony is that the more you do it, the more apparent it becomes that you are in a hole, and do not know the way out -- and neither does anyone else.

I'm am sorry that I cannot educate you further.

No big surprise here then -- since you do not even know who Obama is!

KarlMarx1989

7th September 2009, 02:29

I know that many of the things that they say Jesus did were the same things that Heru (Horus) and Mithra had been told as doing in the past. Also, their supposed birth dates are all on the old Winter Solstice (Dec. 25) and they were all born from virgin women. There are about five other gods who had also done very similar things and were born on the same day by virgin women.

spiltteeth

7th September 2009, 03:37

Spiltteeth (yes, you guessed it, still deep in smokescreen mode):

Well, we already know you can't.

WRONG That was not my question. Add this to the other questions you can not answer.

You then list several claims you have made in previous posts -- about which I did comment, but you allege I did not -- in the vain hope that this will show I dismissed them. And yet, you still can't find a single post where I actually do dismiss them. So, most of your last post is just wasted effort.

WRONG - I did not allege that you did not comment on them, I am showing you that you did not answer them. Now I know you can not read or understand english well, so I even went so far as to put 'answer' in italics but I guess that didn't work. If only I could use crayons...
Since you did not answer them you have dismissed them.

I won't comment on the many passages you have cut and pasted since I have already done so in earlier posts, despite your allegations that I did not, except to say that you have missed yet another golden opportunity to tell us what 'god' is.

I told you already. I know you CAN NOT answer (should I put it in bold for you to make it easier on your struggling "mind" - I think I'd better)
I know you CAN NOT answer them.

So, this was just another delaying tactic on your part.

Please do not let me delay you. Answer away already!

As if I could stop you.

This does not answer my question. Add this to the many, many other questions you can not answer.

Well, you are the liar and fabulist here,

Please back this up - where have I lied. Or is this not in your interest? Add this -in advance -to the many, many other questions you CAN NOT answer.

having found that you could not rise to my challenge, so you had to post an open attack on me instead.

This is interesting logic. So I'll just quote you and -by this logic -tell me what you make of this? in advance -add this question to the many, many others you can not answer.

I'm afraid you are getting rather desperate in your attempt to defend the indefensible.

Re-read my posts, this time with some glasses on.

as I have pointed out several times, you can't even count correctly.

Now, since you struggle to count correctly

quit while you are a long way behind --, since you do not seem to be able to understand even simple English sentences.

your knowledge of 'simple logic' looks about as convincing as your ability to count.

Moreover, it is a sign of just how desperate you are becoming that you are thrashing about for something -- anything -- to throw at me, like 'logical fallacy' (when it's plain you do not know what these are), 'contradiction' (when you seem to confuse this with 'falsehood' or 'error'), and 'scientific method' (when this is inapplicable here -- do you suppose we can carry out measurements and experiments to settle this?)

since you can't even get the simple things I say right -- or, are you content to agree with things that go right over your head (as they seem to have done)?

Your incapacity to read simple English sentences once more comes to the surface

but your new lack of facility with simple words like 'we' is not reassuring.

o, once again, your incapacity to read simple English is plain for all to see (except, perhaps, you, since you can't read).

if you can't count, then complex issues in logic and the scientific method (which you recruit to your cause) are clearly beyond you.

3) What, like your 'low blows' about my alleged 'errors' which you regularly fail to substantiate.

the only mistake I have made is to assume you could argue rationally, and would

Are you beginning to lose it?

Or have you taken up verbal rambling as a new hobby?

I'm sorry, I can't make head-or-tail of this rambling passage -- I'd accuse you of being drunk again, but I do not want to be nasty.

Your tactic now seems to be: The smokescreen just isn't working, so thrash about for something -- anything --, no matter how ridiculous it is, to throw at Rosa.

This is LITERALLY less then 2 pages of our conversation.

Would a serious poster -oh! I forgot you can not answer questions.

A
nd, this last post of yours is more of the same: instead of telling us what all your elaborate descriptions of something you call "god" are actually about, you simply quote a series of passages that got you nowhere before, in the vain hope, perhaps, that if you repeat the same points over and over, I will meekly acquiesce.

WRONG AGAIN. I know you believe in telepathy and you think you can read minds, it is delightful, but that is not the reason. In fact I told you the reason. I'll tell you again -this is what we humans call evidence. Evidence of what? That you can not answer my questions.
Again, if I had some nice crayons I could make this clearer to you.

No worries, I have already accepted your capitulation -- a capitulation amply confirmed by this rambling post of yours, wherein you can't defend your ideas, but are reduced to re-quoting passages that failed to rise to my challenge weeks ago.

WRONG AGAIN. If you accepted it you wouldn't be replying. Also, there was no capitulation. Now you can 'interpret' what I say like a new age palm reader to find out 'waht I really mean.' You got a whole lot of crazy, no need to waste it all on mw.

Nice try turning this around on me, but none of us are fooled by these delaying tactics of yours. Either put up, or shut up.

None of you! How many people are in yr head?

Please answer my questions OR SHUT UP!

Alas for you, not even this will work, for it is still plain you can't respond effectively to my challenge.

Hey, you can't even tell me what a man is!

And, as I pointed out, you can't respond, so you just resort to petty abuse; here is yet more:

Petty abuse....please see above or inquire within a mirror.

Odd that: You spend an awful lot of time on an 'unworthy opponent'.

Hey, this whole time you've been talking to a guy who can't read, does not understand english, and can't count.

In fact, I can see it already: you rail against me, not my arguments,
:laugh:

since you can't respond to them,
:laugh:

but have to kick up a cloud of dust to try to hide that fact, The irony is that the more you do it, the more apparent it becomes that you are in a hole, and do not know the way out -- and neither does anyone else.

No big surprise here then -- since you do not even know who Obama is!

What makes you think I don't know who Obama is? In advance - add this to all the many, many questions you cannot answer.

No surprise here -- since you don't even know what a man is!

Assuming you are human, are you by any chance over the age of 15? Or is this actually how you think grown ups speak?
In advance - add this to the many, many questions you cannot answer.

spiltteeth

7th September 2009, 03:40

Oh, and please show me where you even responded -not answered - merely responded to this, as you claim you did :

Why privilege the data about Reality that arrives solely via empirical operations (and seems to form the foundations of your and possibly Rosa's atheism,-ie attesting that there can be no God as God cannot be proved through experiment) as deﬁnitional of what is rational?

This preference of deﬁneing rationality this way bears little conception to how science actually works in practice. How many years was it that Einstein’s Law of Special Relativity was accepted on the basis of belief before any experimental evidence was proffered to support this theory? Today, in the conﬂuence of general relativity and quantum theory, the majority of theoretical physicists subscribe to string theory, a theory that has no foreseeable means for experimental veriﬁcation.
Knowing about reality cannot be limited by rationality as only determined empirically, either by the secular materialists or by Christians who use this epistemological version of what is rational to promote the status quo.
It's a ruling class tule and very elitist.
Look at something that has been at issue for at least the past 35 years :The deniers of global warming have consistently claimed that the theory behind global warming has not been ‘scientiﬁcally proven’ (i.e. is not rational or not rational enough).

There is an ethics of receptivity concerning what we can say about reality.

No new data is allowed that might upset the construct reality of the predominant capitalist (or socialist or whatever is in current ‘rationalist’ vogue) worldview.

Look at reality from the study of quantum physics, where our understanding of nonlocality and other aspects of the quantum world indicate that science “is far from yielding an assured access to ʻthe Realʼ” (i.e. independent reality as opposed to an empirical reality understood by science and described by mathematics, validating Kantʼs claim that the purpose of science is not a knowledge of reality but that of phenomena, since you once brought Kant up by the by)

Read yr Focault and you'll see how science is used by the ruling class to oppress and control. After all, scientists and doctors have access to *THE* truth, just as medieval Catholics once claimed...

I firmly believe that by claiming a monopoly on access to reality and claiming the right to define what's rational by yr own standards is thoroughly elitist, counter-revolutionary, and will only lead to an oppression similar to the religious oppression you claim to fight against.

I adress this to you Haycinth, and Rosa as well.

when I was talking about God being relational in nature I meant instead of the self deciding to believe in God, or not, early Christians (and their Jewish forbearers and I believe my Orthodox Church retains a bit of this) understood that their persons, their selves, were not deﬁned via interiority, but by relationally; through their relationality with God, with neighbor, and with their environment. There was no existent self independent of these relationships. And, pre-modernity, they understood that “God is not bound by any external rational truths” Thus, ethically, the only thing that constituted Reality was how one behaved relationally.
Nowadays Christianity, under modernity, allows a personal God that can be moulded exactly as each self desires, hence you get a VERY ugly hateful god under Pat Robinson.
In modern times, reality is apprehended primarily in terms of a humanocentric rationality that reveals the “real workings” of the universe bringing salvation through the ingenuity of humankindʼs technical achievements. This progress through human rationality is the telos of history. This ʻmodernʼ description of reality collapsed as a result of the First and Second World Wars, the Holocaust, the development and use of the atom bomb and subsequent nuclear arms race, and the environmental crisis which destroyed forever the concept of linear technical progress (“things are getting better and better every day”) fueled by human ʻrationalityʼ (e.g. under what form of rationality was the Holocaust ʻconstructedʼ and 125 million humans murdered in the wars of the 20th century?).
Today, the self exists as an autonomous, self-directed being, entirely constituted through the interiority of the person.
In pre-modernity, the self is only constituted through an interior relationality with God. The person does not really exist outside this relationship. (Likewise, pre-modern reality was believed to be an advancement on the Biblical where Reality is described in terms of a historical telos leading toward salvation revealed to a chosen people, Israel, by their god, YHWH. Persons still do not have a ʻself.ʼ ʻPersonhoodʼ is constituted entirely through oneʼs relationship with their family
and tribe.)
As to why rational apprehension ought not be given a privileged position, I would again point towards Global Warming. The science is 35 yrs old. The damage is done. CEO's fear for their children's future. Science continues to give us more data to confirm the horror we are in for. So....why is nothing done? I've read a few psych papers, they talk about denial etc But here I personally would refer to metaphysics to understand how we are relating to the data, and how we can change our relationship with this data.
Now I have my own opinions, I might be completely wrong, but I believe it is because (1) misunderstandings of what constitutes rational thought that devises construct limitations on what new data can be incorporated into one’s understanding of reality at any given time; (2) the construction of self as the reality perceiving subject that relies on the big Other to validate the self’s experience; and (3) an assumption regarding the apperception of reality that splits thinking from acting. That is, the self is allowed to perceive itself as possessing a certain attribute if it ‘thinks’ in a certain way. How the self acts either doesn’t enter in to affect such thinking or is relegated to immateriality in the assessment of one’s self-disclosure (e.g. one’s self perception of ‘Christian’ religiosity is over-determined by what one self referentially thinks of one’s Christian-ness versus how one objectively acts to exhibit Christian virtues in one’s everyday behavior, like 'I'm a good Christian is a conservative or republican or supports torture vs how you actually interact and relate to people on a day to day basis etc). For these above reasons, neither the secular materialist nor the good Christian is able to process the new data.
Anyway, I see metaphysics not as true or false, but as a potentially useful way to relate to reality.

OR you can add this to the ....etc

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th September 2009, 09:52

Spiltteeth (still stuck in Smokescreensville):

What makes you think I don't know who Obama is?

You had to ask me.

No surprise here -- since you don't even know what a man is!

Still copying me, I see.

No ideas of your own?

But, we already know that; you have to be told what to believe both by tradition and the Bible.

Even so, you still can't tell us what 'god' is.

And, instead of telling us, you indulge in yet more abuse:

Assuming you are human, are you by any chance over the age of 15? Or is this actually how you think grown ups speak?
In advance - add this to the many, many questions you cannot answer.

Slightly fewer than you, in fact.

Oh, and please show me where you even responded -not answered - merely responded to this, as you claim you did :

Where did I claim I had answered this?

And, that second quote of yours, alas, contains several senseless sentences, namely those that use the empty word "god". Pity you missed this golden opportunity to tell us what 'he' is.

Anyone would think you didn't know.:rolleyes:

Anyway, it looks like you have run out of things to say other than repeating posts that throw up yet more dust, and which make abusive comments about me.

spiltteeth

7th September 2009, 19:28

Spiltteeth (still stuck in Smokescreensville):

[QUOTE]You had to ask me.

Wrong yet AGAIN - I never asked you who Obama was.
I ask you to show me where I asked you who he was but you are unable to ANSWER questions.
Please add this to the huge list of unanswered questions.

And, instead of telling us, you indulge in yet more abuse:

:lol:

Slightly fewer than you, in fact.

Wrong again Roba, goodness. I actually listed all the questions you refused to answer.

Where did I claim I had answered this?

Wrong again Rosa! I never claimed you had answered this, I claimed you never even responded to this! Someone needs to practice their reading skills...

Since I answer things : here is what you wrote in response to me posting this as well as other posts :

You then list several claims you have made in previous posts -- about which I did comment, but you allege I did not -- in the vain hope that this will show I dismissed them. And yet, you still can't find a single post where I actually do dismiss them. So, most of your last post is just wasted effort.

I won't comment on the many passages you have cut and pasted since I have already done so in earlier posts, despite your allegations that I did not,

Are you short circuiting?

And, that second quote of yours, alas, contains several senseless sentences, namely those that use the empty word "god". Pity you missed this golden opportunity to tell us what 'he' is.

What about ALL the sentences that do not contain the term 'god'? You are breaking down...

Anyone would think you didn't know.:rolleyes:

Well, that is not the issue. In fact, knowing God doesn't even make sense. The issue is if god is an empty term! Don't tell me this far into the game you didn't even know this! Goodness...

Anyway, it looks like you have run out of things to say other than repeating posts that throw up yet more dust, and which make abusive comments about me.

I know I asked this last post, but did you see all the abusive things you said about me that I posted? And I asked you what you think that says about you in relation to smokescreens.
Now I am shocked -shocked I say!- that you did not answer me. Self-awareness, on a completely unrelated topic, is a problem for AI programs.

Now, I told you if I had crayons it would make things a little easier for you to understand. Or puppets. I have used cartoons to illustrate, in a simple manner that even you might understand, you see, I at least try to answer you, I apologize for them not being as colorful as I would have liked.
For obvious reasons I am represented by Job, I feel you will recognize your self.

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae191/spiltteeth/comic-1.jpg
http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae191/spiltteeth/comic2.jpg

Rosa Lichtenstein

9th September 2009, 07:31

Spiltteeth -- I am sorry I can't engage with you at present, since I am locked in a lengthy debate with a few academic Marxists/mystics over the precise nature of 'dialectical contradictions' (none of ehom see to know!):

http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org/2009/05/05/brief-comments-on-the-relationship-between-marxism-and-the-hegelian-dialectic/

When I get a chance, I will respond to you -- but from the above, I can see you are unravelling rather alarmingly!

spiltteeth

9th September 2009, 15:07

Children pass through a stage of 'magical thinking' where they believe they can, just by the power of their thoughts, effect people just as you suggest.

Mind reading, telepathy, and now yr powerful enough to cause me to unravel!

Why, in your attempt to escape christianity, you have merely inverted it.
You have built your own little cult of Self.

Rosa Lichtenstein

9th September 2009, 16:08

Spiltteeth, thanks for confirming your rather fragile state of mind:

Children pass through a stage of 'magical thinking' where they believe they can, just by the power of their thoughts, effect people just as you suggest.

Mind reading, telepathy, and now yr powerful enough to cause me to unravel!

Why, in your attempt to escape christianity, you have merely inverted it.
You have built your own little cult of Self.

No wonder you need to believe in fairytales...

spiltteeth

9th September 2009, 20:11

That looks like fun, ignore the content of people's posts and then add a dull insult in highly repetitive machine like repetitions..

Your posts are like crazy person mad-libs.

"It's no wonder you -verb-because you can't even-name of simple intellectual activity- plus your in no position to -verb- since your a -god-botherer/mystic- and can't possibly be a -noun-."

It'd be a simplistic program...

Hyacinth

10th September 2009, 23:10

Sorry for the delayed response, been busy as of late.

Well, if yr talking about metaphysics in general then I'd have to say I agree that metaphysical terms don't say anything about the world, rather they say something about our relationship to the world. I don't posit metaphysics opposing science, or use it in a scientific fashion. I mean, what the hell is dasein? Can you look at it through a microscope? But thats not what metaphysics are about. I've read a bit of metaphysics and have found zero answers, but what I have found are different ways to relate to a question or problem.
I fail to see how metaphysical statements, if they say nothing about the world, can say something about our relation to it, insofar as to say something about our relation to the world is to say something about the world.

You next claim that metaphysics gives us "different ways to relate to a question or problem", care to elaborate on that, as I'm at a complete loss as to how metaphysics can do this—apart, perhaps, from leading us into confusion and error. But, presumably, this isn't what you have in mind.

So, when I was talking about God being relational in nature I meant instead of the self deciding to believe in God, or not, early Christians (and their Jewish forbearers and I believe my Orthodox Church retains a bit of this) understood that their persons, their selves, were not deﬁned via interiority, but by relationally; through their relationality with God, with neighbor, and with their environment. There was no existent self independent of these relationships. And, pre-modernity, they understood that “God is not bound by any external rational truths” Thus, ethically, the only thing that constituted Reality was how one behaved relationally.
I fail to see the relevance of the first bit about your relational conception of selfhood. It seems quite trivial that among the many valid responses to "Who are you?" a number of them will make reference to the relations in which we stand. E.g., "I am so-and-so, of this-and-that tribe, who lives in such-and-such place, offspring of so-and-so, etc." None of this is remotely metaphysical, nor does it exclude other answers to the query.

As for your last sentence, you've lost me, I haven't a clue what "ethically, the only thing that constituted Reality was how one behaved relationally" means.

Nowadays Christianity, under modernity, allows a personal God that can be moulded exactly as each self desires, hence you get a VERY ugly hateful god under Pat Robinson.
Except, if anything, the Christianity of the past was much more brutal and bloody than that of today. Modernity has forced Christianity to moderate.

In modern times, reality is apprehended primarily in terms of a humanocentric rationality that reveals the “real workings” of the universe bringing salvation through the ingenuity of humankindʼs technical achievements. This progress through human rationality is the telos of history. This ʻmodernʼ description of reality collapsed as a result of the First and Second World Wars, the Holocaust, the development and use of the atom bomb and subsequent nuclear arms race, and the environmental crisis which destroyed forever the concept of linear technical progress (“things are getting better and better every day”) fueled by human ʻrationalityʼ (e.g. under what form of rationality was the Holocaust ʻconstructedʼ and 125 million humans murdered in the wars of the 20th century?).
The Comteian positivistic conception of progress is false, and? This has what to do with metaphysics?

Today, the self exists as an autonomous, self-directed being, entirely constituted through the interiority of the person.
You would do well to do more than just assert that. As I've pointed out, there are perfectly valid answers to the query "Who are you?" which make reference to the relations, or perhaps more property the relationships, in which we stand, and are in.

In pre-modernity, the self is only constituted through an interior relationality with God. The person does not really exist outside this relationship. (Likewise, pre-modern reality was believed to be an advancement on the Biblical where Reality is described in terms of a historical telos leading toward salvation revealed to a chosen people, Israel, by their god, YHWH. Persons still do not have a ʻself.ʼ ʻPersonhoodʼ is constituted entirely through oneʼs relationship with their family and tribe.)
Except that our identity couldn't be "constituted through an interior relationality (whatever that means) with God" since "god" is an empty term. And the rest of what you say here I find equally as senseless. The world is not answerable to us, you seem to have the confused view that we somehow get to decide what is real and what is not. While it is within our purview to decide what "real" and "not real" mean, we do not decide what is real or not.

As to why rational apprehension ought not be given a privileged position, I would again point towards Global Warming. The science is 35 yrs old. The damage is done. CEO's fear for their children's future. Science continues to give us more data to confirm the horror we are in for. So....why is nothing done? I've read a few psych papers, they talk about denial etc But here I personally would refer to metaphysics to understand how we are relating to the data, and how we can change our relationship with this data.
Except it could—and has been—argued that events such was WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the policies which politicians undertake or fail to undertake, are a consequence not of rationality, but irrationality. But, even setting that aside, if we take a more neutral view toward reasoning and regard it instead as a tool, a mere means to an end, and thus admit that it can be used for evil just as well as good, why deny ourselves a useful tool simply because it can be misused? As well, you haven't exactly provided us with what is suppose to be an alternative: go back to some pre-scientific mysticism? We've had quite a long history of that and it didn't get us very far. Despite all the various negative effects that technology has had, science and technology have taken us further in the last century than metaphysics and mysticism in the previous two millennia.

Also, though this is not material to the above response, you misrepresent the current scientific consensus on global warming. While it is certainly something we should be concerned about. We are not in store for horrors. Civilization will not end, it will go on more or less as it has today. The reason global warming has been ignored as a threat in the advanced industrial countries is because, by and large, it isn't a threat to the advanced industrial countries. Most of the detremental effects of global warming will be, as usual, on the poor.

Anyway, I see metaphysics not as true or false, but as a potentially useful way to relate to reality.
How exactly is it useful? And, just as if metaphysics is nonsense it is neither true nor false, how can it be useful if it is nonsense?

spiltteeth

10th September 2009, 23:38

Hyacinth;1542537]Sorry for the delayed response, been busy as of late.

I fail to see how metaphysical statements, if they say nothing about the world, can say something about our relation to it, insofar as to say something about our relation to the world is to say something about the world.

I gave numerous examples.

You next claim that metaphysics gives us "different ways to relate to a question or problem", care to elaborate on that, as I'm at a complete loss as to how metaphysics can do this—apart, perhaps, from leading us into confusion and error. But, presumably, this isn't what you have in mind.

I gave a specific example, global warming.

I fail to see the relevance of the first bit about your relational conception of selfhood. It seems quite trivial that among the many valid responses to "Who are you?" a number of them will make reference to the relations in which we stand. E.g., "I am so-and-so, of this-and-that tribe, who lives in such-and-such place, offspring of so-and-so, etc." None of this is remotely metaphysical, nor does it exclude other answers to the query.

I'm not talking about responses, but how one relates to there own being, Self, etc and then how that in turn effects how one relates to the world, reality, new data etc

As for your last sentence, you've lost me, I haven't a clue what "ethically, the only thing that constituted Reality was how one behaved relationally" means.

Again, examples have been given, ie the way a Christian today is able to define themselves by 'isms,' vs being a Christian defined within interactions.

Except, if anything, the Christianity of the past was much more brutal and bloody than that of today. Modernity has forced Christianity to moderate.

That's a blanket statement thats pretty meaningless. At the beginning Christians wouldn't even fight in the army. Modernity has forced Christianity to be moderate? Again, I haven't a clue what Christianity yr referring too, but if you would include fundamentalist Christianity, which now controls America to a large extent, and pushed for war with Iraq, then I'd disagree.
But again, your terms are much too broad for me to really comment.

The Comteian positivistic conception of progress is false, and? This has what to do with metaphysics?

Privileging rationality has led to inaction with regards to global warming etc etc etc

You would do well to do more than just assert that. As I've pointed out, there are perfectly valid answers to the query "Who are you?" which make reference to the relations, or perhaps more property the relationships, in which we stand, and are in.

Many people today have an inner life. An interiority. Need proof? We disagree. So, "who are you?" Will this "you" change if all your relatives die? Is it some constant etc
It has to do with how you relate to the world. Seems pretty basic to me.

Except that our identity couldn't be "constituted through an interior relationality (whatever that means) with God" since "god" is an empty term.

Why not? Even IF 'god' were an empty term that means it cannot be communicated, or talked about. Even as a concept it affects peoples inner lives. inner life = subjectivity.
Again, this seems almost too obvious to mention.

And the rest of what you say here I find equally as senseless. The world is not answerable to us, you seem to have the confused view that we somehow get to decide what is real and what is not. While it is within our purview to decide what "real" and "not real" mean, we do not decide what is real or not.

I thought we do decide, in fact there is a whole school of thought, called Science, that is involved in just such an endeavor.
Now privileging this school...etc

Except it could—and has been—argued that events such was WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the policies which politicians undertake or fail to undertake, are a consequence not of rationality, but irrationality. But, even setting that aside, if we take a more neutral view toward reasoning and regard it instead as a tool, a mere means to an end, and thus admit that it can be used for evil just as well as good, why deny ourselves a useful tool simply because it can be misused?

Why deny it indeed? As far as privileging it above all else...

As well, you haven't exactly provided us with what is suppose to be an alternative: go back to some pre-scientific mysticism? We've had quite a long history of that and it didn't get us very far. Despite all the various negative effects that technology has had, science and technology have taken us further in the last century than metaphysics and mysticism in the previous two millennia.

I haven't provided an alternative since I see no contradiction.

Also, though this is not material to the above response, you misrepresent the current scientific consensus on global warming. While it is certainly something we should be concerned about. We are not in store for horrors. Civilization will not end, it will go on more or less as it has today. The reason global warming has been ignored as a threat in the advanced industrial countries is because, by and large, it isn't a threat to the advanced industrial countries. Most of the detremental effects of global warming will be, as usual, on the poor.

No. This is false. Absolutely so. Evidence? And obviously our labor and materials come from these poorer countries so it would effect us. Good lord, I am really stunned you could believe this. The science is OVERWHELMING!

How exactly is it useful? And, just as if metaphysics is nonsense it is neither true nor false, how can it be useful if it is nonsense?

Again, I gave examples. Global warming etc
I feel you can simply go back and re-read my previous post. You can disagree, but all my responses are there.

Hyacinth

11th September 2009, 03:34

I gave numerous examples.
Not that I noticed.

I gave a specific example, global warming.
And what was metaphysical about that?

I'm not talking about responses, but how one relates to there own being, Self, etc and then how that in turn effects how one relates to the world, reality, new data etc
And how, pray tell, did you figure out how people relate to their own being (whatever that is), and how they relate to the world, without looking at how they behave and what they say?

Again, examples have been given, ie the way a Christian today is able to define themselves by 'isms,' vs being a Christian defined within interactions.
The problem is that the original sentence in question didn't make sense, so I fail to see how your (equally problematic) examples of Christianity are examples of how `Reality is constituted by how one behaves relationally' (sic).

That's a blanket statement thats pretty meaningless. At the beginning Christians wouldn't even fight in the army. Modernity has forced Christianity to be moderate? Again, I haven't a clue what Christianity yr referring too, but if you would include fundamentalist Christianity, which now controls America to a large extent, and pushed for war with Iraq, then I'd disagree.
Clearly you have no clue what "meaningless" means, my contention might be false, but it is meaningful.

And I'm not referring to contemporary fundamentalist Christianity, but rather to the 1500+ years of extensive influence by Christian churches, back in the day where they had much more say in public policy.

Privileging rationality has led to inaction with regards to global warming etc etc etc
You've asserted this, but you've yet to argue that privileging rationality (over what, irrationality?) has lead to this. As I've argued the better explanation is simply that it is not in the interests of the ruling class to do much about it, given that it won't affect them significantly.

Many people today have an inner life. An interiority. Need proof? We disagree. So, "who are you?" Will this "you" change if all your relatives die? Is it some constant etc
That we disagree is your proof?

And yes, presumably part of my answer to your query will change if all my relatives die, or other significant changes in my life take place. You seem to be caught in the grips of the view that there is some underlying permanent Self, a homunculus that is the real you that remains intact when all else changes. I would direct you to Hume, the Buddhists, Ryle's "The Concept of Mind" (esp. Ryle), among others to see what all is wrong with this idea.

It has to do with how you relate to the world. Seems pretty basic to me.
What has to do with how I relate to the world?

Why not? Even IF 'god' were an empty term that means it cannot be communicated, or talked about. Even as a concept it affects peoples inner lives. inner life = subjectivity.
Again, this seems almost too obvious to mention.
Well, we're not finally getting to the roots of (some) of your conceptual confusions. I would add to the list of recommendations Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, and specifically the private language argument.

As well, you don't address my objection. I don't deny that people's crazy beliefs can impact how they behave—one need only go into a psych ward to see this. But you contend that people are somehow defined by their relation to God. Which cannot be the case is "God" is an empty term.

I thought we do decide, in fact there is a whole school of thought, called Science, that is involved in just such an endeavor.
Now privileging this school...etc
That you think this shows your lack of understanding of science (this isn't to claim that scientists don't err, or that they are themselves not subject to conceptual confusions), and it also shows your idealism.

Why deny it indeed? As far as privileging it above all else...
We privilege it because it is a better tool. It is as simple as that. Science gets us results. Metaphysics and mysticism don't, and—worse still—they impede progress.

I haven't provided an alternative since I see no contradiction.
What do contradictions have anything to do with what I've said?

You keep claiming that we are privileging science or reason or whatever, in order for us to be privileging these we have to privilege them over something else: what is that something else?

No. This is false. Absolutely so. Evidence? And obviously our labor and materials come from these poorer countries so it would effect us. Good lord, I am really stunned you could believe this. The science is OVERWHELMING!
Then please share with us some of that 'OVERWHELMING!' science. Rather than countering what I claimed by presenting this `OVERWHELMING!' evidence, you seem to think that exclamation marks and capital letters are a suitable substitute.

For the record, I don't deny that the potential effects of global warming will be catastrophic (the refugee situation that would be created by a significant rise in sea levels in Bangladesh alone suffices for this), but the issues that will be created are ones that will primarily affect the world's poor, and certainly are far from actually undermining civilization as we know it (contrary to what some closet primitivists claim). Industrial civilization is here to stay, global warming or not. We'll just adapt, as we always do.

Again, I gave examples. Global warming etc
I feel you can simply go back and re-read my previous post. You can disagree, but all my responses are there.
What you say about global warming is false, but I fail to see how it is metaphysical. Not to mention, if this is your best example of the utility of metaphysics it proves my point well.

spiltteeth

11th September 2009, 05:41

Hyacinth;1542739]Not that I noticed.

Thats not surprising, I've mentioned how your eyes grow dim when passing over certain sentences.

And what was metaphysical about that?

My entire post was about the metaphysics of how we react to Global Warming.
I have the feeling your just messing about now.

And how, pray tell, did you figure out how people relate to their own being (whatever that is), and how they relate to the world, without looking at how they behave and what they say?

Actually it was by how they behaved and what they wrote that we can speculate intelligently on how they related to the world.

The problem is that the original sentence in question didn't make sense, so I fail to see how your (equally problematic) examples of Christianity are examples of how `Reality is constituted by how one behaves relationally' (sic).

What about the original sentence didn't make sense? I define myself, for example, by my beliefs, I'm a man so I have my own views on what that means etc - interior stuff.

Clearly you have no clue what "meaningless" means, my contention might be false, but it is meaningful.

It is too broad to be meaningful, as I showed using examples.

And I'm not referring to contemporary fundamentalist Christianity, but rather to the 1500+ years of extensive influence by Christian churches, back in the day where they had much more say in public policy.

Oh, I thought you wee comparing what you think was Christianity back in the day to what you think is today's Christianity.
Here's your quote, clearly I misunderstood it so please clarify :

Except, if anything, the Christianity of the past was much more brutal and bloody than that of today. Modernity has forced Christianity to moderate.

So what does this mean then?

You've asserted this, but you've yet to argue that privileging rationality (over what, irrationality?) has lead to this. As I've argued the better explanation is simply that it is not in the interests of the ruling class to do much about it, given that it won't affect them significantly.

I have argued that, and I don't know what ruling class yr referring to, but many of the worlds richest and most influential people (Bill Gates, Ted Turner etc) have expressed major concern for their children's well fare in regard to global warming. Plus, since - I know I already said this but what the hay - since it will effect 3rd world nations this will have disastrous consequences for our economy - ie the ruling class's self-interest.

That we disagree is your proof?

Yes. I will spell it out. We have a different interiority that responds differently to the given data. We both have the same data. Then why do we not hold the same opinions of it?

And yes, presumably part of my answer to your query will change if all my relatives die, or other significant changes in my life take place. You seem to be caught in the grips of the view that there is some underlying permanent Self, a homunculus that is the real you that remains intact when all else changes. I would direct you to Hume, the Buddhists, Ryle's "The Concept of Mind" (esp. Ryle), among others to see what all is wrong with this idea.

As you know, my background is in psychoanalysis, so I see the 'ego' 'self' as an illusion, a misunderstanding. However, this does not prevent people from seeing themselves as having an ego - which is what I mean when I say 'how we relate to our Self.'

What has to do with how I relate to the world?

How does the way you relate to your self have to do with the way you relate to the world? Do you relate to others as if they have a self?

Well, we're not finally getting to the roots of (some) of your conceptual confusions. I would add to the list of recommendations Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, and specifically the private language argument.

I'm in no way alluding to the private language argument. If god is an empty word it says nothing about its nature or existence, in fact it never could. Seems pretty simple.

As well, you don't address my objection. I don't deny that people's crazy beliefs can impact how they behave—one need only go into a psych ward to see this. But you contend that people are somehow defined by their relation to God. Which cannot be the case is "God" is an empty term.
I think you are the one confused. By saying 'god' is an empty term we are talking about a term, not the thing itself.

That you think this shows your lack of understanding of science (this isn't to claim that scientists don't err, or that they are themselves not subject to conceptual confusions), and it also shows your idealism.

And hows that? A large part of my argument, with examples from science, has been that the rational for what is accepted as empirically valid is not a constant, but in fact changes as science changes, AND has less of an impact on theory as some assume (hence the theory of Relativity was accepted by mainstream science BEFORE it was empirically validated etc)

We privilege it because it is a better tool. It is as simple as that. Science gets us results. Metaphysics and mysticism don't, and—worse still—they impede progress.

Again (and again and again) Metaphysic have nothing to do with results. Science says we are doomed (because of global warming or whatever) people believe this, what science can't account for is our subjective stance to this data. Really I'm just repeating myself with different words.

You keep claiming that we are privileging science or reason or whatever, in order for us to be privileging these we have to privilege them over something else: what is that something else?

The something else (and this isn't my brilliant idea, but John Millbanks who I quote) involves two things: "(1) adopting Hegel’s methodology for discerning what is part of the real through a dialectic process where the Whole is reconstituted from a synthesis of the antithesis of opposites, a highly post-modern move away from and beyond modernity; and (2) a repristination of the cruciﬁxion of Christ and recognition of this Event as the monstrosity it occasions, in Reality (whether one is a Christian God-believer, or not)."

Major questions that rationality will not avail a solution too :
1)Will the elite of today in America (and the developed world) voluntarily choose to relinquish their power and wealth if doing so would change the projected future of destruction.
2)Will the multinational corporations voluntarily relinquish the tenets of a nihilistic capitalism and the national defense of this capitalistic system whose trajectory will lead unequivocally to future destruction of the the majority of humans and other life forms presently inhabiting this earth?
under the Reality framework provided by modernity are incapable of responding.
The problem as envisioned revolves around three entangled aspects concerning the limitations of both these systems of thought (Science and religion) for accessing reality. These three intertwined aspects include: (1) misunderstandings of what constitutes rational thought that devises construct limitations on what new data can be incorporated into one’s understanding of Reality at any given time; (2) the construction of self as the Reality perceiving subject that relies on the big Other to validate the self’s experience; and (3) an assumption regarding the apperception of Reality that splits thinking from acting. That is, the self is allowed to perceive itself as possessing a certain attribute if it ‘thinks’ in a certain way. How the self acts either doesn’t enter in to affect such thinking or is relegated to immateriality in the assessment of one’s self-disclosure (e.g. one’s self perception of ‘Christian’ religiosity is over-determined by what one self referentially thinks of one’s Christian-ness versus how one objectively acts to exhibit Christian virtues in one’s everyday behavior).
Not only is individual belief blocked from accessing new data, but also the natural reaction is to suppress new data about the future and to render the carriers of this data as crazy, criminal, or worse, ignored completely.
What characterizes responses from both scientiﬁc materialism and Christianity under modernity is their adiphorization and quietism.
utilitarianism presently serves as the “primary moral framework for decision making in modern societies.” Utilitarianism is legitimized and sustained due to two factors: (a) a central myth of modernity that equates the
telos of history as human progress brought about by goods resulting from economic development and technological innovation; and (b) the goods of human progress can be justiﬁed as moral exclusively through self-reﬂective interiority and determined by human happiness measured in economic terms. Thus you say “God is superﬂuous to the order of the material world”
as self-identity is deﬁned primarily by the consumption of the goods of human progress. And so truly post-modern Christian (or post-modern secular materialist) ethics where Reality has a non-instrumentalist value, “the basis for the common good, for collective action, civic virtue and the very consent to common social goals on which present]societies depend”
is undermined. what these deniers of global warming were actually saying all along and are continuing to say is that this new data is not allowed because it calls to question the myth of capitalism as a means to create real, economic wealth, as opposed to being just one big Ponzi scheme transferring wealth from the future for present consumption.

T
hen please share with us some of that 'OVERWHELMING!' science. Rather than countering what I claimed by presenting this `OVERWHELMING!' evidence, you seem to think that exclamation marks and capital letters are a suitable substitute.

For the record, I don't deny that the potential effects of global warming will be catastrophic (the refugee situation that would be created by a significant rise in sea levels in Bangladesh alone suffices for this), but the issues that will be created are ones that will primarily affect the world's poor, and certainly are far from actually undermining civilization as we know it (contrary to what some closet primitivists claim). Industrial civilization is here to stay, global warming or not. We'll just adapt, as we always do.

Rather heartless, sure millions will dies but we'll adapt -that is the main thing! This EXACT attitude is what I fight against.

proof ...
I'll refer to the comprehensive national assessment of the current and predicted impacts of global climate change — released by the Obama administration June 16.

"Global warming it has the potential to wreak havoc on every region of the country and every sector of U.S. society,”
"It declares a state of emergency, predicting far-reaching and costly consequences — impacts that include extreme heat waves, floods, devastating hurricanes, the spread of disease, water shortages, threats to the nation’s cities, highways, ports and food production, and disruptions to U.S. energy supply. In short, failure to address climate change has the potential to cause a catastrophic economic burden."
"ohn Holdren told reporters gathered for the briefing. Among the many sectors affected by a rapidly changing climate are:

The $7.6 billion winter recreation industry in northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. With shorter winters and more precipitation falling as rain than snow, the length of the winter snow season would be cut in half.
The coastal energy infrastructure of the Southeast. Refineries, processing facilities, and coastal ports in the Southeast are all considered particularly vulnerable to disruption due to sea-level rise and the high winds and storm surge associated with hurricanes and other tropical storms.
The wine and food growing industries of California. Changes in climate are likely to compromise crops like almonds, apricots, olives and walnuts that require a minimum number of cool days to set fruit for the following year.
The agriculture and ranching industries of the Great Plains. Already plagued by unsustainable water use and greater frequency of extreme heat, farmers in this region face reduced crop yields — or failure — due to extreme heat and increasing frequency of drought.
The fisheries of Alaska. The state’s fishing industry provides most of the nation’s salmon, crab, halibut and herring. Alaska Native communities rely on harvests of fish, walruses, seals, whales, and other marine species. All are threatened because melting sea ice is changing the timing and extent of blooms of plankton, a nutrient in the marine food web on which all marine life depends."

Thats just a taste.

What you say about global warming is false, but I fail to see how it is metaphysical. Not to mention, if this is your best example of the utility of metaphysics it proves my point well.

Well, in the other post I proposed a religious solution of a new way of relating to one another. Although I keep noticing you use the word utility...I guess you don't consider taking action to avoid what you call 'a catastrophe' isn't significant.
What would be significant then?

Pirate turtle the 11th

12th September 2009, 21:39

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqC73omSk4o&feature=related

Hyacinth

13th September 2009, 21:38

Thats not surprising, I've mentioned how your eyes grow dim when passing over certain sentences.
My eyes are perfectly fine, it is rather that I am—to paraphrase Heinlein—searching at night in a dark room for a black cat that isn't there. A more apt analogy for trying to comprehend what you are trying to say.

My entire post was about the metaphysics of how we react to Global Warming.
I have the feeling your just messing about now.
What you've given—inasmuch as it is comprehensible—is a bad sociological account of how people react to global warming.

What about the original sentence didn't make sense? I define myself, for example, by my beliefs, I'm a man so I have my own views on what that means etc - interior stuff.
But what does this have to do anything with how the world is constituted?

It is too broad to be meaningful, as I showed using examples.
Demonstrating yet again that you don't know what "meaningless" is. I believe what you are trying to say is that what I've said is a hasty generalization.

Oh, I thought you wee comparing what you think was Christianity back in the day to what you think is today's Christianity.
Here's your quote, clearly I misunderstood it so please clarify :

So what does this mean then?
You understand correctly, I took issue with your claim that the Christianity of today, under the influence of modernity, is worse than the Christianity of the past.

I have argued that, and I don't know what ruling class yr referring to, but many of the worlds richest and most influential people (Bill Gates, Ted Turner etc) have expressed major concern for their children's well fare in regard to global warming. Plus, since - I know I already said this but what the hay - since it will effect 3rd world nations this will have disastrous consequences for our economy - ie the ruling class's self-interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming

Hardly a disaster.

Yes. I will spell it out. We have a different interiority that responds differently to the given data. We both have the same data. Then why do we not hold the same opinions of it?
Presumably we disagree because we do not find the data equally persuasive, and, of course, there are underlying causal mechanisms in the brain which will also reflect these differences. Neither of these responses requires that we postulate an unchanging Cartesian self, a homunculus, or anything of the sort.

As you know, my background is in psychoanalysis, so I see the 'ego' 'self' as an illusion, a misunderstanding. However, this does not prevent people from seeing themselves as having an ego - which is what I mean when I say 'how we relate to our Self.'
Except that if this conception of Self that we have is nonsensical, then we cannot relate to our Self, as there is no such thing.

How does the way you relate to your self have to do with the way you relate to the world? Do you relate to others as if they have a self?
I'm not sure what relating to my Self means. I perfectly well understanding ordinary questions like "What do you think of yourself?", and I understand what it means to relate to others, but I haven't a clue what it means to relate to others 'as if they have a self'.

I'm in no way alluding to the private language argument. If god is an empty word it says nothing about its nature or existence, in fact it never could. Seems pretty simple.
You made the claim that the concept of God, even if it is incommunicable, is capable of affecting people's lives. The underlying assumption behind this view is that you seem to think there is some sort of private inner life, and that we can define concepts ostensively with reference to these private experiences. And hence that the concept of God can be meaningful to me even if is incommunicable to others. Except meaning doesn't work this way. In order for the concept of God to play the role which you seek it to private language has to be possible, and this is why the private language argument is relevant to what you say.

As well, you don't address my objection. I don't deny that people's crazy beliefs can impact how they behave—one need only go into a psych ward to see this. But you contend that people are somehow defined by their relation to God. Which cannot be the case is "God" is an empty term.
I think you are the one confused. By saying 'god' is an empty term we are talking about a term, not the thing itself.
If "god" is an empty term then there is no thing which it denotes. As such no thing to be talked about. We can only talk about the term.

Again (and again and again) Metaphysic have nothing to do with results. Science says we are doomed (because of global warming or whatever) people believe this, what science can't account for is our subjective stance to this data. Really I'm just repeating myself with different words.
I'm happy that you concede that metaphysics is nonsense, and you also concede that it is useless. In which case, I fail to see why we ought keep it around. Simple as that.

As well, scientists aren't saying we're doomed (as is indicated in the link on the economic impacts of global warming). And why can't science explain how and why we react the way we do to global warming, or what scientists say, etc.? This seems a perfectly valid line of study for sociology, psychology, etc., and in fact people's attitudes and cognitive biases with respect to perceived authorities (e.g., scientists) is already a subject of study.

The something else (and this isn't my brilliant idea, but John Millbanks who I quote) involves two things: "(1) adopting Hegel’s methodology for discerning what is part of the real through a dialectic process where the Whole is reconstituted from a synthesis of the antithesis of opposites, a highly post-modern move away from and beyond modernity; and (2) a repristination of the cruciﬁxion of Christ and recognition of this Event as the monstrosity it occasions, in Reality (whether one is a Christian God-believer, or not)."
An appeal to Hegel hardly helps your case, considering that he was perhaps the biggest charlatan in the history of philosophy, and an excellent example of the pernicious effect that nonsense can have. As Schopenhauer put it:

"If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudophilosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right."

Major questions that rationality will not avail a solution too :
1)Will the elite of today in America (and the developed world) voluntarily choose to relinquish their power and wealth if doing so would change the projected future of destruction.
2)Will the multinational corporations voluntarily relinquish the tenets of a nihilistic capitalism and the national defense of this capitalistic system whose trajectory will lead unequivocally to future destruction of the the majority of humans and other life forms presently inhabiting this earth?
I fail to see how these aren't empirical questions.

under the Reality framework provided by modernity are incapable of responding.
The problem as envisioned revolves around three entangled aspects concerning the limitations of both these systems of thought (Science and religion) for accessing reality. These three intertwined aspects include: (1) misunderstandings of what constitutes rational thought that devises construct limitations on what new data can be incorporated into one’s understanding of Reality at any given time; (2) the construction of self as the Reality perceiving subject that relies on the big Other to validate the self’s experience; and (3) an assumption regarding the apperception of Reality that splits thinking from acting. That is, the self is allowed to perceive itself as possessing a certain attribute if it ‘thinks’ in a certain way. How the self acts either doesn’t enter in to affect such thinking or is relegated to immateriality in the assessment of one’s self-disclosure (e.g. one’s self perception of ‘Christian’ religiosity is over-determined by what one self referentially thinks of one’s Christian-ness versus how one objectively acts to exhibit Christian virtues in one’s everyday behavior).
Not only is individual belief blocked from accessing new data, but also the natural reaction is to suppress new data about the future and to render the carriers of this data as crazy, criminal, or worse, ignored completely.
What characterizes responses from both scientiﬁc materialism and Christianity under modernity is their adiphorization and quietism.
utilitarianism presently serves as the “primary moral framework for decision making in modern societies.” Utilitarianism is legitimized and sustained due to two factors: (a) a central myth of modernity that equates the
telos of history as human progress brought about by goods resulting from economic development and technological innovation; and (b) the goods of human progress can be justiﬁed as moral exclusively through self-reﬂective interiority and determined by human happiness measured in economic terms. Thus you say “God is superﬂuous to the order of the material world”
as self-identity is deﬁned primarily by the consumption of the goods of human progress. And so truly post-modern Christian (or post-modern secular materialist) ethics where Reality has a non-instrumentalist value, “the basis for the common good, for collective action, civic virtue and the very consent to common social goals on which present]societies depend”
is undermined. what these deniers of global warming were actually saying all along and are continuing to say is that this new data is not allowed because it calls to question the myth of capitalism as a means to create real, economic wealth, as opposed to being just one big Ponzi scheme transferring wealth from the future for present consumption.
This is all (apart form the Continental jargon which serves only to confuse) well and good, but you're not really offering an alternative to reason or science, but, it strikes me, are offering a criticism of how science and reason are (mis)perceived. The issue isn't science or reason or anything of the sort, the issue is rather people's misunderstandings and conceptual confusions surrounding these. So yes, science and reason are still the ways forward, and progress is still what we are after, what we seek to do through conceptual clarification is to rid ourselves of various confusions which are impeding the progress.

I'll refer to the comprehensive national assessment of the current and predicted impacts of global climate change — released by the Obama administration June 16.

"Global warming it has the potential to wreak havoc on every region of the country and every sector of U.S. society,”
"It declares a state of emergency, predicting far-reaching and costly consequences — impacts that include extreme heat waves, floods, devastating hurricanes, the spread of disease, water shortages, threats to the nation’s cities, highways, ports and food production, and disruptions to U.S. energy supply. In short, failure to address climate change has the potential to cause a catastrophic economic burden."
"ohn Holdren told reporters gathered for the briefing. Among the many sectors affected by a rapidly changing climate are:

The $7.6 billion winter recreation industry in northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. With shorter winters and more precipitation falling as rain than snow, the length of the winter snow season would be cut in half.
The coastal energy infrastructure of the Southeast. Refineries, processing facilities, and coastal ports in the Southeast are all considered particularly vulnerable to disruption due to sea-level rise and the high winds and storm surge associated with hurricanes and other tropical storms.
The wine and food growing industries of California. Changes in climate are likely to compromise crops like almonds, apricots, olives and walnuts that require a minimum number of cool days to set fruit for the following year.
The agriculture and ranching industries of the Great Plains. Already plagued by unsustainable water use and greater frequency of extreme heat, farmers in this region face reduced crop yields — or failure — due to extreme heat and increasing frequency of drought.
The fisheries of Alaska. The state’s fishing industry provides most of the nation’s salmon, crab, halibut and herring. Alaska Native communities rely on harvests of fish, walruses, seals, whales, and other marine species. All are threatened because melting sea ice is changing the timing and extent of blooms of plankton, a nutrient in the marine food web on which all marine life depends."

Thats just a taste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming#Cost_estimates
Costly? Yes. The end of the world as we know it? Hardly.

Well, in the other post I proposed a religious solution of a new way of relating to one another. Although I keep noticing you use the word utility...I guess you don't consider taking action to avoid what you call 'a catastrophe' isn't significant.
What would be significant then?
Where did I ever condone what capitalists are doing? I would be perfectly happy to take action to combat the deleterious effects of climate change, except that I'm in no position to do so. It is just that I don't have the power, and neither do you. You seem to propose an idealist solution to the problem—getting people to change their attitudes and beliefs and how they relate to each other or something of that sort. What I would see us do is take power, take control of the means of production, whereupon we can direct our economic and scientific efforts toward finding a solution to the various problems of the world. That is the only real solution to these problems, everything else is pissing in the wind.

spiltteeth

13th September 2009, 22:33

Hyacinth;1545078]
What you've given—inasmuch as it is comprehensible—is a bad sociological account of how people react to global warming.

It's only sociological in part, really its about how people relate to new information and determine weather it is 'rational enough' to be accepted as empirically valid.

But what does this have to do anything with how the world is constituted?

Nothing, simply about how we view the worlds as constituted.

Hardly a disaster.

How many people must be throw into poverty, starvation, or drought for you to consider it a disaster, ball park estimate.

Presumably we disagree because we do not find the data equally persuasive, and, of course, there are underlying causal mechanisms in the brain which will also reflect these differences. Neither of these responses requires that we postulate an unchanging Cartesian self, a homunculus, or anything of the sort.

Actually I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about wildly differing peoples of entire nations each with their own socio-politics and yet the vast majority, for centuries, have reacted to new knowledge as regards there subjective experience, in a similar manner. Obviously an unchanging Self is ludicrous.

Except that if this conception of Self that we have is nonsensical, then we cannot relate to our Self, as there is no such thing.

Your experience of being.

You made the claim that the concept of God, even if it is incommunicable, is capable of affecting people's lives. The underlying assumption behind this view is that you seem to think there is some sort of private inner life, and that we can define concepts ostensively with reference to these private experiences. And hence that the concept of God can be meaningful to me even if is incommunicable to others. Except meaning doesn't work this way. In order for the concept of God to play the role which you seek it to private language has to be possible, and this is why the private language argument is relevant to what you say.

Since there is no "I" to relate experience to this obviously isn't what I'm saying.

I'm happy that you concede that metaphysics is nonsense, and you also concede that it is useless. In which case, I fail to see why we ought keep it around. Simple as that.

Well, I've repeated ad nauseam why I disagree, with examples.

As well, scientists aren't saying we're doomed (as is indicated in the link on the economic impacts of global warming). And why can't science explain how and why we react the way we do to global warming, or what scientists say, etc.? This seems a perfectly valid line of study for sociology, psychology, etc., and in fact people's attitudes and cognitive biases with respect to perceived authorities (e.g., scientists) is already a subject of study.

It is. One of those paths of study involves metaphysics, the promising one I've seen. I've already noted the psychological studies and what I think of them, and "pure" sociological studies will never offer a new form of subjectivity to actually Change peoples reactions.

An appeal to Hegel hardly helps your case, considering that he was perhaps the biggest charlatan in the history of philosophy, and an excellent example of the pernicious effect that nonsense can have. As Schopenhauer put it:

"If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudophilosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right."

I only make references to his methodology, which functions in a completely different way today then how Hegel used it.

This is all (apart form the Continental jargon which serves only to confuse) well and good, but you're not really offering an alternative to reason or science, but, it strikes me, are offering a criticism of how science and reason are (mis)perceived. The issue isn't science or reason or anything of the sort, the issue is rather people's misunderstandings and conceptual confusions surrounding these. So yes, science and reason are still the ways forward, and progress is still what we are after, what we seek to do through conceptual clarification is to rid ourselves of various confusions which are impeding the progress.

Right, well I did say (twice) I am not criticizing science or posing an alternative, as I keep saying, it is how we relate to data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming#Cost_estimates
Costly? Yes. The end of the world as we know it? Hardly.

You mean if we stop all pollution right now? Boy, you are the optimist! And you say I'm an idealist! If the earths temp raises 7 degrees or more it may not be possible to sustain human life, originally the UN scientists were aiming at a cut-off of 3 degrees, however, realistically they recognized that capitalism and industry won't allow it, so they have set it at 5 degrees, which will make life unlivable for the majority of humans, and "uncomfortable" for the rest.
But lets assume all industry, capitalistic enterprise, and industry will wither away before this happens.
Sensible.

Where did I ever condone what capitalists are doing? I would be perfectly happy to take action to combat the deleterious effects of climate change, except that I'm in no position to do so. It is just that I don't have the power, and neither do you. You seem to propose an idealist solution to the problem—getting people to change their attitudes and beliefs and how they relate to each other or something of that sort. What I would see us do is take power, take control of the means of production, whereupon we can direct our economic and scientific efforts toward finding a solution to the various problems of the world. That is the only real solution to these problems, everything else is pissing in the wind.

Really, and its not my idea, but what is proposed is a way out of our morbid relationship with science and the state. Utilizing a different form of subjectivity is way to better understand people's reactions hopefully under a communistic society an understanding of what to avoid in our new society's relationship to science.
It's most important application is in opening up a new place of dissent, and a new way of understanding those more subtle power structures that exist in the state, science, and the whole sickly rationalistic, 'wholly natural science' approach, or at least understanding the consequences.

Hyacinth

13th September 2009, 23:15

I'll address the rest when I have the time, but this jumped out at me:

You mean if we stop all pollution right now? Boy, you are the optimist!
It might do good to actually read the article which refers to "estimate[s] of the costs of stabilizing atmospheric CO2-equivalent at 550 ppm." So hardly the cessation of all pollution.

If the earths temp raises 7 degrees or more it may not be possible to sustain human life. originally the UN scientists were aiming at a cut-off of 3 degrees, however, realistically they recognized that capitalism and industry won't allow it, so they have set it at 5 degrees, which will make life unlivable for the majority of humans, and "uncomfortable" for the rest.
Source?

But lets assume all industry, capitalistic enterprise, and industry will wither away before this happens.
Sensible.
Are you just strawmaning my position, or are you advocating primitivism?

Hyacinth

13th September 2009, 23:36

Actually I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about wildly differing peoples of entire nations each with their own socio-politics and yet the vast majority, for centuries, have reacted to new knowledge as regards there subjective experience, in a similar manner. Obviously an unchanging Self is ludicrous.
So you're talking about ideology. I fail to see why we need metaphysics to understand that.

Your experience of being.
Haven't a clue what that queer expression means. I can experience many things, but I fail to see how I can experience being.

Since there is no "I" to relate experience to this obviously isn't what I'm saying.
No, it isn't obvious that this is what you're saying, nor that you're saying anything.

It is. One of those paths of study involves metaphysics, the promising one I've seen. I've already noted the psychological studies and what I think of them, and "pure" sociological studies will never offer a new form of subjectivity to actually Change peoples reactions.
Except metaphysics has nothing do to with the world, and as such cannot be a path of study of anything, least of all our understanding of the world.

And you've made a number of assertions that somehow science is inadequate in dealing with these issues, but have yet to provide an argument to such an effect.

And the way to change how people behave is to change how they live, as, after all, it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but their social existence that determines their consciousness, to paraphrase Marx.

I only make references to his methodology, which functions in a completely different way today then how Hegel used it.
Contemporary Hegelians make no more sense than Hegel himself. Nothing useful or informative could come out of such a convoluted and contradictory system as Hegel's.

Really, and its not my idea, but what is proposed is a way out of our morbid relationship with science and the state. Utilizing a different form of subjectivity is way to better understand people's reactions hopefully under a communistic society an understanding of what to avoid in our new society's relationship to science.
Given that communism involves the abolition of the state, in a communist society there couldn't exist any "morbid relationship [between] science and the state". The problem today is that, by and large, people are not educated enough when it comes to science; scientific literacy is astonishingly low. In a communist society, where we will presumably allow for everyone to be as educated as they please, this issue will be mitigated, permitting for a better understanding of science, and guarding against the misuse and abuse of scientific authority. So, I suppose, there would be a change in how people would relate to science, but this is to be brought about by a change in the material conditions, not from armchair speculation.

spiltteeth

14th September 2009, 02:44

I'm advocating good old communist revolution. Meanwhile, I agree with an explanation of why we do no not incorporate new data into action, and agree with the above way of relating to science in a way which does not privilege the current definitional premise of rationality as an access to reality, so the self can act.

"Climate scientists gathering in Copenhagen today attempted to hammer home the full scale of the threat posed by global warming, warning that we are currently on track for a "five-degree world" where the global population would be slashed from an expected nine billion in 2050 to just one billion people by the end of the century."
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2238380/climate-scientists-warn

Very short info :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/23/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections/

http://blog.taragana.com/n/global-warming-of-7-degree-celsius-could-kill-billions-of-people-this-century-64864/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5357725/Global-warming-of-7C-could-kill-billions-this-century.html

Hyacinth

14th September 2009, 06:36

"Climate scientists gathering in Copenhagen today attempted to hammer home the full scale of the threat posed by global warming, warning that we are currently on track for a "five-degree world" where the global population would be slashed from an expected nine billion in 2050 to just one billion people by the end of the century."
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2238380/climate-scientists-warn

Very short info :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/23/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections/

http://blog.taragana.com/n/global-warming-of-7-degree-celsius-could-kill-billions-of-people-this-century-64864/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5357725/Global-warming-of-7C-could-kill-billions-this-century.html
Very interesting read. I may perhaps be an optimist, but I don't think capitalism so irrational as to permit for such an outcome to take place. Measures are already underway as to prevent this, though perhaps not the most effective measures. At least certain segments of the ruling class recognize the danger.

Of course, ideally there would be a socialist revolution which would permit for the reorganization of economic life along more rational lines, as this would in turn mitigate further the negative effects of global warming. Climate change is, strictly speaking, a technical problem, for which we are already working on technical solutions, primarily dealing with changing our power generation away from fossil fuels toward alternative sources, with nuclear being the best choice.

spiltteeth

14th September 2009, 20:02

Well, we'll see. The UN has already changed its target of a 3 degree change to five, given the realities of change, plus many of the ruling class have said the goal ought to be to reduce the human pop. to around 500,000. In fact, if you look at those huge billion dollar donations from Gates, Turner, and others the majority of that money went to organizations such as population watch, pop. action, whose goal it is to reduce the population, what exactly they do I haven't a clue.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th September 2009, 19:27

Spiltteeth -- by now well on the way to becoming President of Smokescreensville:

Wrong yet AGAIN - I never asked you who Obama was. I ask you to show me where I asked you who he was but you are unable to ANSWER questions. Please add this to the huge list of unanswered questions.

Indeed I will, just as you show me where I have said many of the things you have alleged of me.

Wrong again Roba [who's she?], goodness. I actually listed all the questions you refused to answer.

Where has I refused to answer a single question?

The bottom line is that you still can't tell us what 'god' is. The rest, as has been pointed out many times, is just a smokescreen.

Wrong again Rosa! I never claimed you had answered this, I claimed you never even responded to this! Someone needs to practice their reading skills...

In fact, I did respond, but not as you had expected. Someone needs to practice their comprehension skills.

Are you short circuiting?

Perhaps, but I have a long way to go to match you.

What about ALL the sentences that do not contain the term 'god'?

Indeed, what about them?

You are breaking down...

Again, no matter how hard I try, I'm still lagging far behind you in this regard. Any tips on how I can catch up?

Exhibit C for the prosecution:

Well, that is not the issue. In fact, knowing God doesn't even make sense. The issue is if god is an empty term! Don't tell me this far into the game you didn't even know this! Goodness...

I am not sure you do, since you keep using this odd word.

I know I asked this last post, but did you see all the abusive things you said about me that I posted? And I asked you what you think that says about you in relation to smokescreens.
Now I am shocked -shocked I say!- that you did not answer me. Self-awareness, on a completely unrelated topic, is a problem for AI programs.

Now, I told you if I had crayons it would make things a little easier for you to understand. Or puppets. I have used cartoons to illustrate, in a simple manner that even you might understand, you see, I at least try to answer you, I apologize for them not being as colorful as I would have liked.
For obvious reasons I am represented by Job, I feel you will recognize your self.

In fact, I do not think you are capable of 'making things easier', since you do not seem to know yourself what the term "god" refers to, so how you propose to explain that it is not an empty term is still a mystery (and not just to the rest of us).

spiltteeth

19th September 2009, 20:04

Rosa Lichtenstein;1550625]Spiltteeth -- by now well on the way to becoming President of Smokescreensville:

Is this in yr imaginary kingdom?

Indeed I will, just as you show me where I have said many of the things you have alleged of me.

What things? The Obama thing?
Here:

What makes you think I don't know who Obama is?
You had to ask me.

Where has I refused to answer a single question?

Are u out of yr mind? Do you read other peoples posts?
here:

Me:
Quote:
it is not in my interest to engage in anyone who might disabuse me of my illusions....this is reasonable yes?
yr answer:
None.

Me:
Quote:
I'm saying matter and energy are also empty terms, according to your criteria, but they can be defined by relational attributes just like 'god' so we are able to use 'god' and 'energy' and 'matter' in a meaningful way in a sentence. Am I wrong? They also cannot be defined because it would have the empty term matter and energy. Correct?
your answer:
none

Me:
Quote:
I asked you to comment on my paraphrase and point out how I was wrong, pretty simple, you haven't.
Quote:
Please just cut and paste where you did this.
your explanation of why my paraphrase was inaccurate :

None

Me:
Quote:
Please define "I".
Your answer :

None

Me:
Quote:
Please tell me how on would define god without reference to matter, energy, or substance, since these things are also empty terms.
Your answer :

None

Me
Quote:
What if you view it by way of relational attributes, like matter and energy?
Your answer :

None

me:
Quote:
SO, IF -and I am not - IF I were to say what I mean by God is a dude with a mustache who is a person and lives on pluto THEN God would no longer be an empty term.

You know what I mean by person, mustache, pluto correct?

(Obviously we can then examine this empirically and say well, if he lives on pluto how does he breath, if he's a person he can't live that long etc etc BUT this is not what we are talking about.)
Your answer :

None

Me:
Quote:
I am intrigued by your Obama comment. So, what if I ask what do you mean by "man." In fact I challenge you to do it, without using empty terms.
Your answer :

None

Your intellectually dishonesty : claiming I don not know who Obama was even though I never said this, I asked you.

Me :
Quote:
Now I will concede you are correct -in fact I have several times - as long as you are willing to maintain your intellectual integrity and avoid similar empty terms in your posts.
Your answer :

None

Me:
Quote:
what would a thing that cannot be referenced by energy, matter, or substance look like? So I know.
Your answer :

None.

Me :
Quote:
I forgot you do not answer those types of questions or seek clarity, unless your willing to give me another example besides the meaningless Obama one?
Your answer:

none

You baselessly accuse me of spreading lies.
Me :
Quote:
Now, since you have accused me of slander, which I take great offense too, when I have merely voiced a suspicion, I will ask you to retract the statement or at the very least prove suspicion wrong.
your
Quote:
answer
:

None

Me:
Quote:
Why privilege the data about Reality that arrives solely via empirical operations (and seems to form the foundations of your and possibly Rosa's atheism,-ie attesting that there can be no God as God cannot be proved through experiment) as deﬁnitional of what is rational?

This preference of deﬁneing rationality this way bears little conception to how science actually works in practice. How many years was it that Einstein’s Law of Special Relativity was accepted on the basis of belief before any experimental evidence was proffered to support this theory? Today, in the conﬂuence of general relativity and quantum theory, the majority of theoretical physicists subscribe to string theory, a theory that has no foreseeable means for experimental veriﬁcation.
Knowing about reality cannot be limited by rationality as only determined empirically, either by the secular materialists or by Christians who use this epistemological version of what is rational to promote the status quo.
It's a ruling class tule and very elitist.
Look at something that has been at issue for at least the past 35 years :The deniers of global warming have consistently claimed that the theory behind global warming has not been ‘scientiﬁcally proven’ (i.e. is not rational or not rational enough).

There is an ethics of receptivity concerning what we can say about reality.

No new data is allowed that might upset the construct reality of the predominant capitalist (or socialist or whatever is in current ‘rationalist’ vogue) worldview.

Look at reality from the study of quantum physics, where our understanding of nonlocality and other aspects of the quantum world indicate that science “is far from yielding an assured access to ʻthe Realʼ” (i.e. independent reality as opposed to an empirical reality understood by science and described by mathematics, validating Kantʼs claim that the purpose of science is not a knowledge of reality but that of phenomena, since you once brought Kant up by the by)

Read yr Focault and you'll see how science is used by the ruling class to oppress and control. After all, scientists and doctors have access to *THE* truth, just as medieval Catholics once claimed...

I firmly believe that by claiming a monopoly on access to reality and claiming the right to define what's rational by yr own standards is thoroughly elitist, counter-revolutionary, and will only lead to an oppression similar to the religious oppression you claim to fight against.

I adress this to you Haycinth, and Rosa as well.
Your response :

None

Me:
Quote:
when I was talking about God being relational in nature I meant instead of the self deciding to believe in God, or not, early Christians (and their Jewish forbearers and I believe my Orthodox Church retains a bit of this) understood that their persons, their selves, were not deﬁned via interiority, but by relationally; through their relationality with God, with neighbor, and with their environment. There was no existent self independent of these relationships. And, pre-modernity, they understood that “God is not bound by any external rational truths” Thus, ethically, the only thing that constituted Reality was how one behaved relationally.
Nowadays Christianity, under modernity, allows a personal God that can be moulded exactly as each self desires, hence you get a VERY ugly hateful god under Pat Robinson.
In modern times, reality is apprehended primarily in terms of a humanocentric rationality that reveals the “real workings” of the universe bringing salvation through the ingenuity of humankindʼs technical achievements. This progress through human rationality is the telos of history. This ʻmodernʼ description of reality collapsed as a result of the First and Second World Wars, the Holocaust, the development and use of the atom bomb and subsequent nuclear arms race, and the environmental crisis which destroyed forever the concept of linear technical progress (“things are getting better and better every day”) fueled by human ʻrationalityʼ (e.g. under what form of rationality was the Holocaust ʻconstructedʼ and 125 million humans murdered in the wars of the 20th century?).
Today, the self exists as an autonomous, self-directed being, entirely constituted through the interiority of the person.
In pre-modernity, the self is only constituted through an interior relationality with God. The person does not really exist outside this relationship. (Likewise, pre-modern reality was believed to be an advancement on the Biblical where Reality is described in terms of a historical telos leading toward salvation revealed to a chosen people, Israel, by their god, YHWH. Persons still do not have a ʻself.ʼ ʻPersonhoodʼ is constituted entirely through oneʼs relationship with their family
and tribe.)
As to why rational apprehension ought not be given a privileged position, I would again point towards Global Warming. The science is 35 yrs old. The damage is done. CEO's fear for their children's future. Science continues to give us more data to confirm the horror we are in for. So....why is nothing done? I've read a few psych papers, they talk about denial etc But here I personally would refer to metaphysics to understand how we are relating to the data, and how we can change our relationship with this data.
Now I have my own opinions, I might be completely wrong, but I believe it is because (1) misunderstandings of what constitutes rational thought that devises construct limitations on what new data can be incorporated into one’s understanding of reality at any given time; (2) the construction of self as the reality perceiving subject that relies on the big Other to validate the self’s experience; and (3) an assumption regarding the apperception of reality that splits thinking from acting. That is, the self is allowed to perceive itself as possessing a certain attribute if it ‘thinks’ in a certain way. How the self acts either doesn’t enter in to affect such thinking or is relegated to immateriality in the assessment of one’s self-disclosure (e.g. one’s self perception of ‘Christian’ religiosity is over-determined by what one self referentially thinks of one’s Christian-ness versus how one objectively acts to exhibit Christian virtues in one’s everyday behavior, like 'I'm a good Christian is a conservative or republican or supports torture vs how you actually interact and relate to people on a day to day basis etc). For these above reasons, neither the secular materialist nor the good Christian is able to process the new data.
Anyway, I see metaphysics not as true or false, but as a potentially useful way to relate to reality.
Your response:

None

The bottom line is that you still can't tell us what 'god' is. The rest, as has been pointed out many times, is just a smokescreen.

I gave you a list of relational attributes, this doesn't tell you what god is, but proves god is not an empty term, since those relational attributes are non-referential, as I've pointed out.

In fact, I did respond, but not as you had expected. Someone needs to practice their comprehension skills.

Yea, its fun to just say things without backing them up. I don't do it of course...oh, care to show me where etc?

Indeed, what about them?

Um, why did you not respond to them or the other post that did not contain the word 'god' that you claimed to have responded too.
Shall I break out the crayons?

In fact, I do not think you are capable of 'making things easier', since you do not seem to know yourself what the term "god" refers to, so how you propose to explain that it is not an empty term is still a mystery (and not just to the rest of us).

It refers to
the one Supreme Being :
eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, they mean the one being who is supposed to possess all those properties

The most Perfect Being,
the being who is alleged to be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent

love,
Most people know what you mean by love to the extent that love exists.

the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything,
intends to thereby refer to the entity without which it is supposed that nothing could exist. Put another way, I mean the entity whose existence is supposedly necessary for existence itself.

personal,
by which is meant -and we can easily imagine it - to refer to a being who is able to perform any act that is both conceivable and compatible with all of his other essential characteristics, who has all and only true propositions as beliefs, so it is hard to see to what sort of entity, if not one of a personal ilk, we might ascribe those properties.

omnipotent,
the being who supposedly can perform any act that is both conceivable and compatible with all of the beings other essential characteristics

omniscient,
omniscience as the property of possessing maximal propositional knowledge

omnibenevolent,
loves everyone maximally, ie the being that always does everything in it's power to protect everyone’s best long-term interests (out of concern for others’ welfare)”
which means the being who performs that act which ultimately brings about a greater degree of happiness (or comfort, well-being, etc.) among people generally than could any other act, then god does that which is in everyone’s best long-term interests.”
( Obviously while pleasing most people does not immediately please everyone, in bringing about the greatest possible measure of (overall) happiness it ipso facto creates the ideal world, and the creation of that world is certainly in everyone’s best long-term interests whether he realizes it or not.)

nonmaterial,
property - bodiless

eternal
The being that is suposed to persist forever throughout time.

creator and ruler of the universe.

Everyone understands perfectly well what it means to create something and a cosmos is just a very big thing (or collection of things). Likewise with the concept of ruling something.

AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN I ask for falsifiable empirical definitions for the actual contents of your position.- a list of qualifications (all of which must be empirical) that would result in the term God being sufficiently meaningful as to warrant further discussion.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th September 2009, 22:24

Spiltteeth:

I gave you a list of relational attributes, this doesn't tell you what god is, but proves god is not an empty term, since those relational attributes are non-referential, as I've pointed out.

We have been over this several times; relational attributes are no use at all unless we know what precisely is being related.

So, if I were to give you the relational attributes of 'Schmod', you'd be none the wiser.

Yea, its fun to just say things without backing them up. I don't do it of course...oh, care to show me where etc?

Nice use of diversionary tactics once more; I am not trying to con anyone into believing in 'god' so I do not have to 'back anything up'; you do.

And we still do not know what 'god' is -- and neither do you.

Or, if you do, you are being very secretive about it.

Um, why did you not respond to them or the other post that did not contain the word 'god' that you claimed to have responded too.

Eh?

Shall I break out the crayons?

And a prayer mat; I think you need help.

It refers to
the one Supreme Being :
eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, they mean the one being who is supposed to possess all those properties

The most Perfect Being,
the being who is alleged to be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent

love,
Most people know what you mean by love to the extent that love exists.

the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything,
intends to thereby refer to the entity without which it is supposed that nothing could exist. Put another way, I mean the entity whose existence is supposedly necessary for existence itself.

personal,
by which is meant -and we can easily imagine it - to refer to a being who is able to perform any act that is both conceivable and compatible with all of his other essential characteristics, who has all and only true propositions as beliefs, so it is hard to see to what sort of entity, if not one of a personal ilk, we might ascribe those properties.

omnipotent,
the being who supposedly can perform any act that is both conceivable and compatible with all of the beings other essential characteristics

omniscient,
omniscience as the property of possessing maximal propositional knowledge

omnibenevolent,
loves everyone maximally, ie the being that always does everything in it's power to protect everyone’s best long-term interests (out of concern for others’ welfare)”
which means the being who performs that act which ultimately brings about a greater degree of happiness (or comfort, well-being, etc.) among people generally than could any other act, then god does that which is in everyone’s best long-term interests.”
( Obviously while pleasing most people does not immediately please everyone, in bringing about the greatest possible measure of (overall) happiness it ipso facto creates the ideal world, and the creation of that world is certainly in everyone’s best long-term interests whether he realizes it or not.)

nonmaterial,
property - bodiless

eternal
The being that is suposed to persist forever throughout time.

creator and ruler of the universe.

Well, you tried something like this before, and it got you nowhere, since you are here using another set of empty terms to help you try to tell us what the original empty term ("god") is.

Everyone understands perfectly well what it means to create something and a cosmos is just a very big thing (or collection of things).

I don't think anyone understands this.

Likewise with the concept of ruling something

Ah, so 'god' is a human being, then?

AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN I ask for falsifiable empirical definitions for the actual contents of your position.- a list of qualifications (all of which must be empirical) that would result in the term God being sufficiently meaningful as to warrant further discussion.

I have no 'position'; why you think I have is a mystery.

My point is, as I stated at the beginning: I do not understand the term "god" -- and neither does anyone else.

Or, if they do, they have kept it well hidden for several thousand years.

spiltteeth

19th September 2009, 22:37

Spiltteeth:

We have been over this several times; relational attributes are no use at all unless we know what precisely is being related.

So, if I were to give you the relational attributes of 'Schmod', you'd be none the wiser.

Nice use of diversionary tactics once more; I am not trying to con anyone into believing in 'god' so I do not have to 'back anything up'; you do.

And we still do not know what 'god' is -- and neither do you.

Or, if you do, you are being very secretive about it.

Eh?

And a prayer mat; I think you need help.

Well, you tried something like this before, and it got you nowhere, since you are here using another set of empty terms to help you try to tell us what the original empty term ("god") is.

I don't think anyone understands this.

Ah, so 'god' is a human being, then?

I have no 'position'; why you think I have is a mystery.

My point is, as I stated at the beginning: I do not understand the term "god" -- and neither does anyone else.

Or, if they do, they have kept it well hidden for several thousand years.

Are we now changing the subject? I thought you said god was an empty term, now your saying no one 'understands' the term god.
Despite the fact that relational attributes tell us nothing of what 'god' is, it takes care of the fact that 'god' is not an empty term.

I've told you what people mean when they use the term god, you say you have no position so I guess its all right. If not, then you have a position.

To me, and most people, those relational attributes are sufficiently meaningful to warrant a discussion using god as a meaningful term.
I think you have a position on this, I think you DON'T believe the term god is a sufficiently meaningful term.
So, I ask for a list of qualifications (all of which must be empirical) that would result in the term God being sufficiently meaningful as to warrant further discussion.
Unless this is another question that you claim to have answered yet won't show where you answered it....

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th September 2009, 22:45

Spiltteeth:

Are we now changing the subject? I thought you said god was an empty term, now your saying no one 'understands' the term god.

Nope -- same point.

Despite the fact that relational attributes tell us nothing of what 'god' is, it takes care of the fact that 'god' is not an empty term.

Not if we have no idea what is being related to what, compounded by the fact that one of the terms (i.e., "god") is empty to begin with.

I've told you what people mean when they use the term god, you say you have no position so I guess its all right. If not, then you have a position.

Eh? So, if I say I have no money, according to you I do have money?

No wonder you believe in 'god'.

To me, and most people, those relational attributes are sufficiently meaningful to warrant a discussion using god as a meaningful term.

Not if they, and you, cannot tell us precisely what is being related to what.

I think you have a position on this, I think you DON'T believe the term god is a sufficiently meaningful term.

Think what you like, but don't put words in my mouth.

So, I ask for a list of qualifications (all of which must be empirical) that would result in the term God being sufficiently meaningful as to warrant further discussion.

That is up to you -- since I do not know what you are banging on about when you use the term "god", I can't be of any assistance to you.

Unless this is another question that you claim to have answered yet won't show where you answered it..

And still, we await some indication that you have a clue what 'god' is...

[And we have only been waiting for a couple of thousand years.]

spiltteeth

19th September 2009, 23:02

Spiltteeth:

Nope -- same point.

Not if we have no idea what is being related to what, compounded by the fact that one of the terms (i.e., "god") is empty to begin with.

Eh? So, if I say I have no money, according to you I do have money?

No wonder you believe in 'god'.

Not if they, and you, cannot tell us precisely what is being related to what.

Think what you like, but don't put words in my mouth.

That is up to you -- since I do not know what you are banging on about when you use the term "god", I can't be of any assistance to you.

Ok, since you have no qualifications and you will not 'help' with any criteria, relational attributes are enough to qualify god as a term. So when people use that term they mean, are referring to, the one supreme being etc

Done and done.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th September 2009, 23:05

Spiltteeth:

Ok, since you have no qualifications and you will not 'help' with any criteria, relational attributes are enough to qualify god as a term. So when people use that term they mean, are referring to, the one supreme being etc

I take it that this means you have given up trying to square the circle, and tell us what you theists are banging on about when you use the word "god".

Done and done.

You certainly have been.

Like a kipper.

spiltteeth

19th September 2009, 23:17

Rosa Lichtenstein;1550858]

I take it that this means you have given up trying to square the circle, and tell us what you theists are banging on about when you use the word "god".

We mean the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th September 2009, 23:27

Spiltteeth (at last making a stab at squaring the circle):

We mean the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

As I indicated earlier, yet another set of empty terms thrown in to try to explain the original empty term "god".

So, we still do not know what you lot are banging on about.

And neither do you.

spiltteeth

19th September 2009, 23:41

Spiltteeth (at last making a stab at squaring the circle):

As I indicated earlier, yet another set of empty terms thrown in to try to explain the original empty term "god".

So, we still do not know what you lot are banging on about.

And neither do you.

Hmmmm, this suspiciously seems to suggest that you indeed do have some Verifiable Criterion of Meaning. I guess I'll have to wonder what it is, since only you know. BUT all of those terms are meaningful, by MY criteria.
Of course I can never answer you truly until you give me a list of qualifications (all of which must be empirical) that would result in the term God being sufficiently meaningful as to warrant further discussion.
Unless I can decide, which I have.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th September 2009, 23:48

Spiltteeth:

this suspiciously seems to suggest that you indeed do have some Verifiable Criterion of Meaning. I guess I'll have to wonder what it is, since only you know. BUT all of those terms are meaningful, by MY criteria.

I have no criterion of meaning at all, since I do not think there is one.

Now, if you have your own criteria, it should be easy for you to tell us what you lot are banging on about when you use the word "god".

Of course I can never answer you truly until you give me a list of qualifications (all of which must be empirical) that would result in the term God being sufficiently meaningful as to warrant further discussion.

Once more, it is not up to me to help you out.

Unless I can decide, which I have.

Eh?

spiltteeth

19th September 2009, 23:56

Rosa Lichtenstein;1550880]Spiltteeth:

I have no criterion of meaning at all, since I do not think there is one.

Now, if you have your own criteria, it should be easy for you to tell us what you lot are banging on about when you use the word "god".

Oh, were referring to whatever it is that holds these relational attributes, none of which are empty, the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

Eh?

Relational attributes qualify the term god etc.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th September 2009, 00:02

Spiltteeth:

Oh, were referring to whatever it is that holds these relational attributes, none of which are empty, the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

And yet, we know no more about what these alleged 'attributes' are supposed to be about than if you had originally tried to tell us what 'schmod' was.

So, if you had told us that 'schmod' is

the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

we would now have no idea what 'schmod' is any more than we now know what 'god' is.

All empty terms.

Relational attributes qualify the term god etc.

But, if the word "god" is empty, and it is, then, as I have pointed out several times, all the relational terms in the world won't help, since we will not know what is being related to what.

spiltteeth

20th September 2009, 05:15

But, if the word "god" is empty, and it is, then, as I have pointed out several times, all the relational terms in the world won't help, since we will not know what is being related to what.

Yea, this is what I said at the very beginning, almost catching up.
Since you can't but help indulge in a priori's...But, if the word "god" isn't empty, and it isn't, since I've given enough relational attributes for it to be meaningful enough to talk about (and remember you can not judge this since you have no criteria for judging if the term 'god' is meaningful or not so you'll just have to take my word for it) we know that people are relating the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe. You probably didn't notice it, but I al;ready said none of these concepts are empty, since an average person will know what I mean by them, and I've explained what I mean by them, and this is my criteria, so we know their not empty terms.
Your left holding yr dick in yr hand since you say, :

I have no criterion of meaning at all, since I do not think there is one.
Whereas my hands are free to high five my peoples/ Late!

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th September 2009, 06:09

Spiltteeth:

Yea, this is what I said at the very beginning, almost catching up.

Except you neglected to tell us what the second half of the alleged relationship is; that is, we still do not know what 'god' is so that we can grasp what it is you god-botherers are 'related' to.

Since you can't but help indulge in a priori's...But, if the word "god" isn't empty, and it isn't, since I've given enough relational attributes for it to be meaningful enough to talk about (and remember you can not judge this since you have no criteria for judging if the term 'god' is meaningful or not so you'll just have to take my word for it) we know that people are relating the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe. You probably didn't notice it, but I al;ready said none of these concepts are empty, since an average person will know what I mean by them, and I've explained what I mean by them, and this is my criteria, so we know their not empty terms.

Well, if the term "god" isn't empty, you should find it easy to tell us what you lot are banging on about when you use the 'formerly empty term' "god". Why so coy, then?

So far, all we have had from you are smokesreens, diversionary tactics, and now, after several months of asking, a new set of empty terms to 'help' us along.

Your left holding yr dick in yr hand since you say, :

Some mishtake there I think.

To sum up, we still have no clue what you mystics mean when you use the empty term "god".

And it now seems: neither have you.

spiltteeth

20th September 2009, 07:24

Oh the term god? No problem, it means the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.
Since relational attributes meet my criteria, primary ones are'nt a problem at all.
Now, I don;t wanna sound insulting....BUT it strikes me an intelligent person might ask WHY worship ...

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th September 2009, 08:25

Spiltteeth:

Oh the term god? No problem, it means the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

Thanks, but this sentence lacks a sense since it contains at least one empty word, namely "god", a term you have yet to explain. We have as yet no idea what these alleged attributes are supposed to be true of.

In other words, you might just as well have posted this:

Oh the term "Schmod"? No problem, it means the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

You:

Since relational attributes meet my criteria, primary ones are'nt a problem at all.
Now, I don;t wanna sound insulting....BUT it strikes me an intelligent person might ask WHY worship ...

Fine, but once more: you will need to explain to the rest of us what these attributes are true of without using any more empty terms, like "god".

Kronos

20th September 2009, 18:09

(I don't know why I posted this in chatter. I must be trippin)

Oh the term god? No problem, it means the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

Thanks, but this sentence lacks a sense since it contains at least one empty word, namely "god", a term you have yet to explain. We have as yet no idea what these alleged attributes are supposed to be true of.

There is also the circularity of the definitions and the thing defined. Is God a supreme being or is a supreme being what God is? If 'supreme being' is what God is, then the idea of a supreme being existed for which to attribute to God's nature. It would be a meaningful set of terms that could be validated without making reference to God. You would not say 'supreme being is a condition of God, but rather God is a condition of supreme being.' But to say this would be to concede that the concept of 'supreme being' existed prior to belief in God.

Now look closer. The meaningful set of terms 'supreme being' is such only as metaphor and in poetic sense...it is not a literal description of anything. If one pointed at a cheeseburger among many cheeseburgers and said 'that one is the supreme one' because it was bigger and had more cheese, the adjective would make sense only insofar as a higher degree of 'burger quality' is had in mind by the person who says it.

But when addressing God, there is no universal category in which this God exists to be compared to other Gods, and judged to be the supreme one.

Therefore, the descriptive term 'supreme' in such a context is ambiguous.

The same problem exists for the adjective 'perfect'. Perfect compared to what? What would qualify a God as perfect...as opposed to imperfect? There can be a perfect cheeseburger....compared to the other ones, but a God? Again, compared to what? Another misuse of an ordinary term which represents a level of value. His score was perfect, that snowman is perfect, the piece fit perfectly.....but what about God is perfect?

There are also many problems with the list of omnis up there, too. An exception can be made for every one of those rules.

Splitteeth, if you are bent on entertaining theological concepts I'd seriously suggest you spend a while reading Spinoza. His system is airtight, and before long you will be laughing at yourself for ever having believed in the Christian God. The only reason you would continue believing in God, and not Santa Claus, is because you have a stake in the belief in God, while for not believing in Santa Claus, you are only denied a few toys.....and you can live with that.

If you refuse to read Spinoza, then please, at least read Kant's ideas concerning belief in God.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th September 2009, 18:31

Kronos:

Splitteeth, if you are bent on entertaining theological concepts I'd seriously suggest you spend a while reading Spinoza. His system is airtight, and before long you will be laughing at yourself for ever having believed in the Christian God. The only reason you would continue believing in God, and not Santa Claus, is because you have a stake in the belief in God, while for not believing in Santa Claus, you are only denied a few toys.....and you can live with that.

If you refuse to read Spinoza, then please, at least read Kant's ideas concerning belief in God.

Nice one Kronos! Spiltteeth is confused enough at it is. Advising him to read these two mega confused thinkers (if he hasn't already done so) should finally sink him without trace. :thumbup:

JimFar

20th September 2009, 18:34

Kronos

20th September 2009, 18:47

Nice one Kronos! Spiltteeth is confused enough at it is. Advising him to read these two mega confused thinkers (if he hasn't already done so) should finally sink him without trace.

Rosa the Smart Alec, Spinoza and Kant are the lesser of evils when in comparison to Thomist philosophy. Plus, Spinoza is a hot item among Marxists. If Splitteeth is going to be confused I only that he be less confused, mmkay?

And you will never take Spinoza away from me. I feel eternal and you can't stop me.

JimFar, you nailed it. All the omnis either eventually cross-contradict each other, or become exposed to exceedingly difficult circumstances when trying to properly define them.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th September 2009, 18:55

Kronos:

Rosa the Smart Alec, Spinoza and Kant are the lesser of evils when in comparison to Thomist philosophy. Plus, Spinoza is a hot item among Marxists. If Splitteeth is going to be confused I only that he be less confused, mmkay?

I disagree; Thomists were/are great logicians; the same cannot be said of these two jokers.

And you will never take Spinoza away from me. I feel eternal and you can't stop me.

Stay confused then...

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th September 2009, 18:59

Jim:

To deny that is to either deny that God is either all-powerful and/or all-knowing and/or good. People who want to assert has all three of these attributes usually wind up redefining them in ways that have little to do with we weunderstand these terms in ordinary discourse, to the extent that they are understandable in such discourse.

Or they indulge in their own via negativa, the end result of which is that 'god' dies the death of a thousand qualifications, to use Anthony Flew's happy aphorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology

Kronos

20th September 2009, 19:02

Thomists were/are great logicians

This is a party I can't attend then, because I am only a garage logician. On the other hand, I have yet to see any ontological consistency in that philosophy, much less any clarity.

I recall you saying something in reference to some Thomists you once chatted with....something about the strong argument they had to explain why 'reality' is 'held together' at any point in time? Is that accurate....or does my memory fail me? Something about there having to be an external agency working to keep the engine running?

This isn't even a problem, in fact, but a misinterpretation of what 'order' is.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th September 2009, 19:11

Kronos:

This is a party I can't attend then, because I am only a garage logician. On the other hand, I have yet to see any ontological consistency in that philosophy, much less any clarity.

Depends who you have read. But, they are in general models of clarity compared to Spinoza.

I recall you saying something in reference to some Thomists you once chatted with....something about the strong argument they had to explain why 'reality' is 'held together' at any point in time? Is that accurate....or does my memory fail me? Something about there having to be an external agency working to keep the engine running?

I might have commented on their ideas about 'god's' relation to the universe, and how it only hangs together because 'he' is its final cause. I said this in debate with some dialecticians who think they have got rid of 'god', explaining causation by reference to 'internal contradictions'.

I go into this in great detail here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2008_01.htm

I would not, however, have used the engine analogy.

Kronos

20th September 2009, 19:28

Depends who you have read. But, they are in general models of clarity compared to Spinoza.
Well then, perhaps we should compare the modest lens grinder, beer lover and prince of philosophers to that bald headed, robe wearing, no causality understanding Catholic chump, in a thread.

I might have commented on their ideas about 'god's' relation to the universe, and how it only hangs together because 'he' is its final cause.How ridiculous. Such a claim only raises more questions equally as absurd. There are more proofs Spinoza offers against 'final cause' than you can shake a stick at.

I said this in debate with some dialecticians who think they have got rid of 'god', explaining causation by reference to 'internal contradictions'.Oh, so it's okay for you to replace one load of nonsense with another load of nonsense, but not okay for me to call Spinoza a decent alternative to Thomas?

Why you gonna do me like that, R?

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th September 2009, 19:32

Kronos

Well then, perhaps we should compare the modest lens grinder, beer lover and prince of philosophers to that bald headed, robe wearing, no causality understanding Catholic chump.

Who on earth do you mean?

How ridiculous. Such a claim only raises more questions equally as absurd. There are more proofs Spinoza offers against 'final cause' than you can shake a stick at.

And good luck arguing your case with a Thomist...

Oh, so it's okay for you to replace one load of nonsense with another load of nonsense, but not okay for me to call Spinoza a decent alternative to Thomas?

Eh? What 'load of nonsense' am I endeavouring to replace dialectical nonsense with?

Why you gonna do me like that, R?

I think you need to calm down.

Kronos

20th September 2009, 19:43

Who on earth do you mean? Benedict 'The Double Deus' Spinoza vs.Thomas 'The Spastic Scholastic' Aquinas.

And good luck arguing your case with a Thomist...Take me to their leader.

Eh? What 'load of nonsense' am I endeavouring to replace dialectical nonsense with?I thought you were explaining how you used the final cause argument as a means to refute the dialectical argument for internal contradiction. It appeared as if you were using Thomism (which you don't endorse) as artillery against dialectical contradiction.

I think you need to calm down. I'm easy like Sunday morning.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th September 2009, 21:41

Kronos:

Benedict 'The Double Deus' Spinoza vs.Thomas 'The Spastic Scholastic' Aquinas.

Give me St Thomas any day of the week. At least he was a sophisticated peddler of non-sense, and a damn good logician.

I thought you were explaining how you used the final cause argument as a means to refute the dialectical argument for internal contradiction. It appeared as if you were using Thomism (which you don't endorse) as artillery against dialectical contradiction.

In fact, I argue that both are philosophical non-sense. You should know me well enough by now to be able to work that out for yourself.

I'm easy like Sunday morning.

Maybe so, but for a moment you were acting crazy like Tuesday afternoon, about 4.17 pm.

spiltteeth

21st September 2009, 06:03

Spiltteeth:

Thanks, but this sentence lacks a sense since it contains at least one empty word, namely "god", a term you have yet to explain. We have as yet no idea what these alleged attributes are supposed to be true of.

In other words, you might just as well have posted this:

You:

Fine, but once more: you will need to explain to the rest of us what these attributes are true of without using any more empty terms, like "god".

Okie dokey. Verifiability Criterion of truth for these attributes please.

spiltteeth

21st September 2009, 06:09

(I don't know why I posted this in chatter. I must be trippin)

There is also the circularity of the definitions and the thing defined. Is God a supreme being or is a supreme being what God is? If 'supreme being' is what God is, then the idea of a supreme being existed for which to attribute to God's nature. It would be a meaningful set of terms that could be validated without making reference to God. You would not say 'supreme being is a condition of God, but rather God is a condition of supreme being.' But to say this would be to concede that the concept of 'supreme being' existed prior to belief in God.

Now look closer. The meaningful set of terms 'supreme being' is such only as metaphor and in poetic sense...it is not a literal description of anything. If one pointed at a cheeseburger among many cheeseburgers and said 'that one is the supreme one' because it was bigger and had more cheese, the adjective would make sense only insofar as a higher degree of 'burger quality' is had in mind by the person who says it.

But when addressing God, there is no universal category in which this God exists to be compared to other Gods, and judged to be the supreme one.

Therefore, the descriptive term 'supreme' in such a context is ambiguous.

The same problem exists for the adjective 'perfect'. Perfect compared to what? What would qualify a God as perfect...as opposed to imperfect? There can be a perfect cheeseburger....compared to the other ones, but a God? Again, compared to what? Another misuse of an ordinary term which represents a level of value. His score was perfect, that snowman is perfect, the piece fit perfectly.....but what about God is perfect?

There are also many problems with the list of omnis up there, too. An exception can be made for every one of those rules.

Splitteeth, if you are bent on entertaining theological concepts I'd seriously suggest you spend a while reading Spinoza. His system is airtight, and before long you will be laughing at yourself for ever having believed in the Christian God. The only reason you would continue believing in God, and not Santa Claus, is because you have a stake in the belief in God, while for not believing in Santa Claus, you are only denied a few toys.....and you can live with that.

If you refuse to read Spinoza, then please, at least read Kant's ideas concerning belief in God.

Supreme being : eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, probably most of them mean the one being who is supposed to possess all those properties.

Perfect being : the being who is alleged to be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. (Ergo, most theists would probably take “the one Supreme Being” and “the most Perfect Being” as synonymous.)

KarlMarx1989

21st September 2009, 06:18

Come to think of it, a Christian once explained 'god' to me in a rather interesting way.

He said that god doesn't have to be some entity that looks down over the Earth. He said that god is all around us. He said that god is the love that one gives another, that god is a good deed, the passion that drives someone.The way he explained it, at first, seemed to tell that god is just a living metaphor; that god was a metaphor for love. However, he then continued by saying that you cannot have true love, true passion or drive without god.

That confounded me even more. However, it is said that Imman-el (Jesus) was god. I think that what he meant was that you cannot have true love, passion, drive, etc. unless you follow the teachings of "christ" because the ways of "christ" are the best way to live.

I can come away from this and remain irreligious. I think, now, that you will not truly succeed in life without passion or determination.

spiltteeth

21st September 2009, 06:19

I would also point out that when Splitteth offers to define God as "the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe," he is simply defining or relating what is one empty term to a bunch of other empty terms. What would a satisfactory definition of the "Ground of Being" or the "Source of Everything" look like? And what are we to make of terms like omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? To the extent that we can make any sense out of these terms in themselves (and a good case can be made that all three of these concepts are really incoherent), it would seem that any posited being cannot have all three attributes at the same time. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then all events including both human-instigated bad events like the Holocaust as well as natural disasters like hurricane Katrina occurred with the permission of a being, who by hypothesis, could have stepped in to prevent them or could have meliorated their consequences. To deny that is to either deny that God is either all-powerful and/or all-knowing and/or good. People who want to assert has all three of these attributes usually wind up redefining them in ways that have little to do with we weunderstand these terms in ordinary discourse, to the extent that they are understandable in such discourse.

I'm not arguing that these properties are true, rather that they are meaningful propositions, coherent (understandable) properties

(G1) “God” = “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe”
(G2) “God” = “the most Perfect Being”

(G3) “God” = “love”
(G4) “God” = “the universe”

(G5) “God” = “the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything”

(D1) omnipotent
(D2) omniscient
(D3) omnibenevolent

g1

eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, probably most of them mean the one being who is supposed to possess all those properties

g2

The being who is alleged to be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. (Ergo, most theists would probably take “the one Supreme Being” and “the most Perfect Being” as synonymous.)

(D1) “Omnipotence” = “for any person P, P is omnipotent if, and only if, P can perform any act that is both conceivable and compatible with all of P’s other essential characteristics”
God’s actions are constrained by (at least) logic and consistency with His other essential attributes. In other words, most would probably agree that God cannot, e.g., draw a square circle inasmuch as that is logically impossible; and most would probably agree that God cannot commit evil acts inasmuch as that would contradict His omnibenevolence

(D2) “Omniscient” = “for any person P, P is omniscient if, and only if, P has all and only true propositions as beliefs”

omniscience as the property of possessing maximal propositional knowledge

(D3) “Omnibenevolent” = “for any person P, P is omnibenevolent if, and only if, P loves everyone maximally”

“Maximally loving” = “for any person P, P is maximally loving if, and only if, P always does everything in P’s power to protect everyone’s best long-term interests (out of concern for others’ welfare)”

“does that which is in everyone’s best long-term interests (out of concern for others’ welfare)”
=
“for any person P, if P performs that act which ultimately brings about a greater degree of happiness (or comfort, well-being, etc.) among people generally than could any other act, then P does that which is in everyone’s best long-term interests.”
while pleasing most people does not immediately please everyone, in bringing about the greatest possible measure of (overall) happiness it ipso facto creates the ideal world, and the creation of that world is certainly in everyone’s best long-term interests whether he realizes it or not.

g3 and g4

“God-3 exists” and “God-4 exists” to express (clearly thinkable) propositions to the extent that “love exists” and “the universe exists” express (clearly thinkable) propositions,

g5
refers to the entity without which it is supposed that nothing could exist. Put another way, by such expressions is usually meant the entity whose existence is supposedly necessary for existence itself.

God is responsible for the existence of (at least) everything except God himself

KarlMarx1989

21st September 2009, 06:24

@Splitteeth What exactly does 'P' stand for?

spiltteeth

21st September 2009, 07:03

@Splitteeth What exactly does 'P' stand for?

Whatever it is we're talking about that has these attributes (God)

KarlMarx1989

21st September 2009, 07:08

Ah. Of course. Thank you.

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st September 2009, 10:23

Spiltteeth:

Verifiability Criterion of truth for these attributes please.

As I have already said, I am not going to help you. You can dig you own way out of the hole you are in.

Nevertheless, I note you still can't tell us what 'god' is.

Full marks for the bluster, though.

(G1) “God” = “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe”
(G2) “God” = “the most Perfect Being”

(G3) “God” = “love”
(G4) “God” = “the universe”

(G5) “God” = “the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything”

(D1) omnipotent
(D2) omniscient
(D3) omnibenevolent

Unfortunately for you, many of these contain an empty word you have yet to explain, namely "god".

Hence, we do not know precisely what it is that is equal to "love", for example.

In fact, for all the good they do, you might as well have posted this:

(G1) “Schmod” = “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe”
(G2) “Schmod” = “the most Perfect Being”

(G3) “Schmod” = “love”
(G4) “Schmod” = “the universe”

(G5) “Schmod” = “the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything”

spiltteeth

21st September 2009, 21:49

Spiltteeth:

As I have already said, I am not going to help you. You can dig you own way out of the hole you are in.

Nevertheless, I note you still can't tell us what 'god' is.

Full marks for the bluster, though.

Unfortunately for you, many of these contain an empty word you have yet to explain, namely "god".

Hence, we do not know precisely what it is that is equal to "love", for example.

In fact, for all the good they do, you might as well have posted this:

You can call it schmod, or G-D, or Yahweh, or whatever, if you'd like an idea
what God is we can start another thread on that, I'm arguing it is not an empty term because it is understandable, looky the bottom part, and because I've proven it is understandable, the term 'god' is not empty.
Unless you argue that the below is not understandable, we have now concluded that the term 'god' is not an empty term.

g1

eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, probably most of them mean the one being who is supposed to possess all those properties

g2

The being who is alleged to be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. (Ergo, most theists would probably take “the one Supreme Being” and “the most Perfect Being” as synonymous.)

(D1) “Omnipotence” = “for any person P, P is omnipotent if, and only if, P can perform any act that is both conceivable and compatible with all of P’s other essential characteristics”
God’s actions are constrained by (at least) logic and consistency with His other essential attributes. In other words, most would probably agree that God cannot, e.g., draw a square circle inasmuch as that is logically impossible; and most would probably agree that God cannot commit evil acts inasmuch as that would contradict His omnibenevolence

(D2) “Omniscient” = “for any person P, P is omniscient if, and only if, P has all and only true propositions as beliefs”

omniscience as the property of possessing maximal propositional knowledge

(D3) “Omnibenevolent” = “for any person P, P is omnibenevolent if, and only if, P loves everyone maximally”

“Maximally loving” = “for any person P, P is maximally loving if, and only if, P always does everything in P’s power to protect everyone’s best long-term interests (out of concern for others’ welfare)”

“does that which is in everyone’s best long-term interests (out of concern for others’ welfare)”
=
“for any person P, if P performs that act which ultimately brings about a greater degree of happiness (or comfort, well-being, etc.) among people generally than could any other act, then P does that which is in everyone’s best long-term interests.”
while pleasing most people does not immediately please everyone, in bringing about the greatest possible measure of (overall) happiness it ipso facto creates the ideal world, and the creation of that world is certainly in everyone’s best long-term interests whether he realizes it or not.

g3 and g4

“God-3 exists” and “God-4 exists” to express (clearly thinkable) propositions to the extent that “love exists” and “the universe exists” express (clearly thinkable) propositions,

g5
refers to the entity without which it is supposed that nothing could exist. Put another way, by such expressions is usually meant the entity whose existence is supposedly necessary for existence itself.

God is responsible for the existence of (at least) everything except God himself

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st September 2009, 21:57

Spiltteeth:

You can call it schmod, or G-D, or Yahweh, or whatever, if you'd like an idea
what God is we can start another thread on that, I'm arguing it is not an empty term because it is understandable, looky the bottom part, and because I've proven it is understandable, the term 'god' is not empty.
Unless you argue that the below is not understandable, we have now concluded that the term 'god' is not an empty term.

I know we can use any set of letters we like, since the term "god" is just as empty as "schmod"; that is why I chose "schmod", which is an empty word.

So, your concession here in fact undermines your entire case (that is, if you have one), since, by saying I can use whatever 'name' I like, it makes no difference. Well, I chose an empty name precisely for this reason.

And thanks for repeating that passage which contains numerous senseless sentences (since they contain several empty words), but it is of no help at all.

We still do not know what 'god' is, and it is now clear that you don't either.

KarlMarx1989

21st September 2009, 22:09

god Is not an empty term since we know what it represents, a variable of sorts. The same as we know that X and Y are numbers in a math equation, we may not know the number at the moment; but we can work out the answer by using what is presented in front of us.

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st September 2009, 23:06

KM1989:

god Is not an empty term since we know what it represents, a variable of sorts. The same as we know that X and Y are numbers in a math equation, we may not know the number at the moment; but we can work out the answer by using what is presented in front of us.

But, we know what numbers are; we have yet to be told what 'god' is.

spiltteeth

22nd September 2009, 02:39

Spiltteeth:

I know we can use any set of letters we like, since the term "god" is just as empty as "schmod"; that is why I chose "schmod", which is an empty word.

So, your concession here in fact undermines your entire case (that is, if you have one), since, by saying I can use whatever 'name' I like, it makes no difference. Well, I chose an empty name precisely for this reason.

And thanks for repeating that passage which contains numerous senseless sentences (since they contain several empty words), but it is of no help at all.

We still do not know what 'god' is, and it is now clear that you don't either.

Actually none of those terms are empty since they all are understandable, you have no criteria and can not judge, I have given reasons why those words are not empty, so we know the term God, by whatever name as long as it refers to the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe is not empty.

You can say those other terms are 'empty' all you'd like it will not make it so, unless you can provide some reason, which is unlikely since it meets my criteria for meaning.
But do tell...I'm waiting with baited breath.

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd September 2009, 03:20

Spiltteeth:

Actually none of those terms are empty since they all are understandable, you have no criteria and can not judge, I have given reasons why those words are not empty, so we know the term God, by whatever name as long as it refers to the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe is not empty.

Not so, since the term "god", at least, is an empty term. Certainly, you can't tell us what 'god' is.

You can say those other terms are 'empty' all you'd like it will not make it so, unless you can provide some reason, which is unlikely since it meets my criteria for meaning. But do tell...I'm waiting with baited breath.

No need to, since, as I have said many times, if they relate to 'god' then any sentence in which you try to do this will be senseless, since they will contain at least one empty term, namely "god".

That is why I said that you might just as well use "schmod" for all the good it will do.

spiltteeth

22nd September 2009, 06:17

Rosa Lichtenstein;1552462]Spiltteeth:

Not so, since the term "god", at least, is an empty term. Certainly, you can't tell us what 'god' is.

So yr criteria is that if I, spiltteeth, cannot, tell you "what" 'god'; is, then 'god' is an empty term? Correct?
Icedently, god is not an empty term, it has met all my criteria, if it hasn't please let me know in what way it hasn't otherwise we'll go with the term 'god' referring to the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

No need to, since, as I have said many times, if they relate to 'god' then any sentence in which you try to do this will be senseless, since they will contain at least one empty term, namely "god".

That is why I said that you might just as well use "schmod" for all the good it will do.

We know the term god is not empty. Therefore the above statement is false.
Unless you mean the above as proper logic, (if any term is related to the term 'god' it is de facto empty) in which case a priori the term is empty, rather mystical but I'd accept it if your sticking to the above.

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd September 2009, 08:03

Spiltteeth:

So yr criteria is that if I, spiltteeth, cannot, tell you "what" 'god'; is, then 'god' is an empty term? Correct?

1. I have no criteria.

2. I see the penny has finally dropped.

Incedentally, god is not an empty term, it has met all my criteria, if it hasn't please let me know in what way it hasn't otherwise we'll go with the term 'god' referring to the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe.

You may subjectively be happy that "god" is not an empty term, but you have yet to persuade the rest of us, my good self in particular --, and since you are arguing with me, you need to address that uphill task (and good luck there!), and abandon your diversionary tactics. After a couple of months of the latter, even you should be able to see they are not working.

Now you say "god" refers to "the one Supreme Being, the most Perfect Being, love, the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything, the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal, eternal creator and ruler of the universe."

But, as I have said many times, we are still unclear what 'god' is, since you might just as well have used "schmod". You reply:

We know the term god is not empty. Therefore the above statement is false.

Again, you may be happy with this, but you would be wouldn't you? But, as I pointed out above, you have yet to persuade the rest of us, in particular yours truly. I still have no clue what you are banging on about when you use the word "god".

If you tell me that "Obama" is a man, and is the president of the USA, the husband of Michelle, the son of..., I understand what you would be saying, I understand to whom these descriptions apply, especially if you produce a picture, or some video.

Now, you can't do this with 'god', since you have no clue what 'he' is, either --, and neither has anyone else -- and, according to the Bible, you can't put this right no matter how hard you try.

Unless you mean the above as proper logic, (if any term is related to the term 'god' it is de facto empty) in which case a priori the term is empty, rather mystical but I'd accept it if your sticking to the above.

Eh?:confused:

Kronos

22nd September 2009, 17:12

I'm arguing it is not an empty term because it is understandableGiving you the benefit of the doubt Rosa will not lend you, the term 'God' can be understandable (or Shmod, for that matter) if and when it is described and defined, as you have done.

However, the description and definitions are obscure, which would in turn force you to defend the meaningfulness of those descriptions and definitions with more definitions and descriptions. This process would become more and more obscure as it descended into metaphorical, allegorical and proverbial sense. As such, your terms may retain their meaningfulness, but not in a literal sense....only a poetic sense, a 'metaphysical' sense, a philosophical sense.

If we are to say that 'God' is a real thing, we would need to address the qualities and characteristics that this real thing has. To do this, we would not use philosophical language, but specialized, scientific terminology at most.

Moreover, if we used scientific terminology to define this thing, we would not traverse into the subject of ethics or morals, since these subjects cannot be addressed in a scientific manner. They too exists in the field of metaphor, allegory, and proverbial sense. Therefore, even if we arrived at some scientifically verifiable evidence that this 'God' existed, we could only define it as some kind of empirical phenomena- it would lack personality, concern, ambition, compassion, and any other anthropomorphic qualities we, as humans, use in language.

The second law of thermodynamics has no motivation. Gravity is not suspicious. Inertia never becomes wrathful. The boiling point of water experiences no sadness. The speed of sound has no need for intimacy. The law of conservation of energy doesn't become angry. Centripetal force isn't jealous. Magnetism doesn't want to be happy.

A 'God' would be nothing more than some other empirical force, object, or process, and it's characteristics would involve no such metaphor.

And even if we attempted to define 'God' as a being with such characteristics, we would inevitably wind up with more problems than what we started with. Defending such qualities as 'omnibenevolent' from the argument that 'there is evil' would involve the counter argument that 'God permits evil so humans can exercise their freewill', which, would severely alter the generally accepted criterion of the qualities of omnipotence and omniscience.

We would now have a 'God' who 'knows everything' and can 'do anything', therefore, we have a 'God' who already knows what choices people will make, making 'freewill' not impossible (impossible yes, but not in this temporarily granted hypothetical model), but irrelevant, and who could have created the universe in such a perfect state as that state which is promised if human beings are obedient to 'God's' rule. In shorter words, he could have saved us all the trouble.

There would be no point in creating a situation where negativity (pain, suffering, despair, etc) would have to be necessary if whatever created that scenario also had the power to create a scenario in which it wasn't necessary.

So your God may very well be omnipotent, but perhaps also a sadist?

Just one more exercise before I stop bothering you. I have been taking Gods apart for over ten years, so excuse me if I am interested in these discussions. Trust me, the rapture you will feel when you realize there is no 'God' is incomparable to the rapture you felt when you thought there was. You will go through a short crisis first, though, but when you recover you will look fabulous.

Anyway, time. For an omniscient being, there could be no passage of time, since for there to be time, there must be development and change, and for there to be development and change, ...or rather, for development and change to be meaningful and experienced....to be 'known', it has to be observed and interpreted- but God cannot do this. He cannot not yet know what he has to already know. For God, existence would be a motionless, static chunk of opaque stuff in limbo. He would be experiencing absolutely everything...and therefore, it would appear to him as nothing at all. There would be no difference regarding things, places, durations, relations, etc.

Therefore existence cannot be conducted by God...simply because there is nothing to conduct. Neither can it be maintained. He cannot intervene to change the course of events which for him were already established before they even started. If he 'stepped in' to change something, he would have had to know prior to stepping in that he would step in to change what he had determined to happen before he would have later decided to step in to change, and therefore wouldn't have had to step in because whatever he wanted to change wouldn't have to be changed, since he knew at the beginning what he wanted to do.

Read that again, slower this time.

On the other hand, if he did feel inclined to step in, he would have had to establish the world, at the beginning, in such a way that he would have the opportunity to change his mind about some course of events in the future. But, to do this, he would have to not possess the quality of omniscience, since if he did, there couldn't be anything that might happen that he wouldn't already know about. Conclusion- god is a schizophrenic?

Your move.