Ignosticism: What Is God?

[quatona]

Ho ho ho. Merry Christmas to you too. I never said that theism ought to be exempt from scrutiny, but was only asking that if falsificationism can be used as a starting point for a critique of the meaning of "God" or "Does God exist?" (or whetever, I am still not exactly sure what the ignostic stance is actually meant to be), then why can't it be applied to other positions too (superstring theory was one of my examples).

I´m not familiar with superstring theory, but in case the definition of "superstring" includes the unfalsifiability of the existence of superstrings I´d say ignosticism can be applied.

Now thats cleared up, would you go back to post #278 and answer my requests for objective criteria of meaningfulness

Since "meaning" is subjective there can´t be such objective criteria. and

also an explanation of what it means for a concept (of God) to be meaningful but not the related word (the term "God").

Your concept is in your mind while words are the means to communicate concepts. When your concept is meaningful but you are unable to communicate your concept as meaningful to me, the word "god" remains meaningless to me, whereas I am still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that your concept is meaningful to you and even might be meaningful to me (if only you could communicate it).
You know, you have a certain tone in your head, you can also sing the very tone you have in your head - yet I can´t hear it when there´s too much noise. There are two possible problems when you have a tone in your head and try to sing this tone for me to know what tone you had in your head:
a - When singing it you may not have hit the note you had in mind
b - I can´t hear it because there´s a lot of noise around.

Or: the word "map" is not a map, and a map is not the territory.

Since in conversations I am always interested in understanding the ideas and concepts that the person opposite attaches a certain term to and not in the countless concepts that are collected in lexica and such, I am depending on getting this person´s idea.


But I am repeating myself.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Since "meaning" is subjective there can´t be such objective criteria

So as far as you are concerned "I shake with apphrehension" may or may not be a meaningful sentence in the English language, it simply depends not on common usage of fluent speakers but instead on the whim, will or imagination of someone? Likewise "Whispers snirt up the down trolley tristently" (an example of word salad) is just as meanigful a sentence in English as the former if someone believes, imagines or wants it to be? We are talking about the English languege, and not some surreal fantasy language aren't we? If you don't mean that that what do you mean when you say "meaning is subjective"?

Maybe a rapist could validly argue "She screamed "No no no!!! leave me alone!!!" which, because meaning is subjective, is an obvious indication that she consented to sex." Is that the point?

If what I have suggested is the case, that surely Unreal and the ignostics might just be inclined to a whimsical noncognitivism (like: after tea, I think I'll consider the word "biscuit" to be meaningless and won't comprehend what it says on the packet, but for lunchtime and the internet I think I'll fail to comprehend "God" tee hee), or they might just be bored with usual debate, and invent their own criteria of meaning ad hoc for the sake of entertainment or impressing a friend. You thing that is possible for the English language? Is that the nub of "meaning is subjective"?

Maybe what you mean to say is the experience of meaning is subjective, just as the experience of the Sun in the sky is subjective, and the experience of tables is subjective, which is because all experience is subjective. But that would not entail that the Sun itself, tables themselves, or meanings of words as they are used are "all in the mind" would it?

Also UnreAL13 I am desperately after your take on this, and still want your specific criteria of meaningfulness and meaninglessness to be explained more thoroughly (or if you feel you have done so already provide a link) please.

 

[UnReAL13]

Ho ho ho. Merry Christmas to you too. I never said that theism ought to be exempt from scrutiny, but was only asking that if falsificationism can be used as a starting point for a critique of the meaning of "God" or "Does God exist?" (or whetever, I am still not exactly sure what the ignostic stance is actually meant to be), then why can't it be applied to other positions too (superstring theory was one of my examples). Not having a decent answer to this is the reason I said you might be guilty of the fallacy of special pleading. In that context I said you seemed to be attacking theism in an arbitrary fashion, which is misread as a request that you do dot criticise it at all.

Look, you seem to be blatantly ignorant to the "theological" aspect of "theological non-cognitivism". You also seem to be taking the whole scope of this philosophy as some sort of personal attack on theists themselves.

This has already been pointed out to you, but being a "theological non-cognitivist" means you don't understand the terminology used within theology. Not ALL terms within the entire scope of language. That would be just a "non-cognitivist". THAT'S the misconception you're having over Ignosticism, and THAT'S why Ignosticism is not a general form of skepticism towards all terminology.

And please tell me how a general criticism of the term "god", which you admit to agreeing should be done, turns into a flat-out attack against your religion.

 

[quatona]

So as far as you are concerned "I shake with apphrehension" may or may not be a meaningful sentence in the English language, it simply depends not on common usage of fluent speakers but instead on the whim, will or imagination of someone?

We have a good example at hand: Although I am trying to describe my concepts in commonly used English terms and (hopefully) grammatically correct sentences your response tells me that you are misunderstanding me completely. Since I am not assuming purposeful misrepresentation on your part I am left with the assumption *misunderstandings despite best efforts on both parts*.

"Meaning" always goes with "to...". This does not imply "whim, will or arbitrariness of someone".

Likewise "Whispers snirt up the down trolley tristently" (an example of word salad) is just as meanigful a sentence in English as the former if someone believes, imagines or wants it to be? We are talking about the English languege, and not some surreal fantasy language aren't we?

Well, sure, but some terms are striking some persons as sort of "surreal". For me "god" is such a term, and the question "Does god exist?" isn´t any less surreal to me than your example.

If you don't mean that that what do you mean when you say "meaning is subjective"?

It means that people might not understand me even though I am trying to communicate concepts that are meaningful to me in correct English sentences to a person to whom these terms have a meaning, too. It happens all the time. Don´t shoot me, the messenger.
Successful communication depends on so many factors that I won´t even start listing them.

Maybe a rapist could validly argue "She screamed "No no no!!! leave me alone!!!" which, because meaning is subjective, is an obvious indication that she consented to sex." Is that the point?

No, I wasn´t drawing any conclusion or implication of guilt or practical consequences. I was simply stating the fact. If a person doesn´t understand the way the communicator uses the term "no" communication involving the term "no" will fail. If the guy in your example doesn´t understand what the girl means when saying "no", she is likely to have a bad experience.
(Now, almost all your examples assume willfull ignorance on the receiving end of the communication, and as long as that is the premise of your thinking it will be the result of your thinking, as well).
Agreement on the meaning is something different than "objectivity".
Which exact meaning which word has to a certain user depends on a lot of things. Fortunately, there are a lot of terms to which people have sufficiently similar ideas so that communication usually works reasonably for practical purposes within certain groups of persons. "No", for example, is such a term among English speaking persons. As are "leave", "me", and "alone". (Of course, as soon as we expect a philosophical discussion agreeing on a definition of the term "me" may become extremely difficult, out of a sudden).

Anyway, unless you are willing to do justice to the fact that the term "god" (or "freedom" or "responsibility" or "supernatural"...) comes with way greater definition problems than terms like "no" or "biscuit" I think there is not much use talking, anyway.

When I ask you the question: "Do you think freedom exists?" - would you seríously expect me to know what concept you are trying to communicate when answering "yes"? Personally, I would have no idea what you mean when answering "yes" - and therefore I wouldn´t even ask such a question.

(like: after tea, I think I'll consider the word "biscuit" to be meaningless and won't comprehend what it says on the packet, but for lunchtime and the internet I think I'll fail to comprehend "God" tee hee)

So you think there´s basically no difference between between terms such as "biscuit" and "god"?

You yourself fill pages after pages telling us you don´t understand what "ignosticism" means - although there are dictionaries out there, and although there are a considerable number of persons doing their best to explain it to you. This is a living example of exactly that which you keep telling me is impossible. According to your own line of reasoning your comprehension problem can´t exist. Your problem with "ignosticism" is pretty much the same as my problem with "god".

Maybe what you mean to say is the experience of meaning is subjective,

No. "Experience of meaning" is wordsalad, in my terminoloty. Meaning is what something means to someone. Meaning is a form of experience. It´s not like out there exists a meaning to every word that we have to find. We create words, we give them meaning, we are the ones due to whom even common usage of terms changes so much that we need new lexica every couple of years.
Fortunately, among certain groups of people there is sufficient agreement on the meaning of words that communication works for surprisingly many instances and situations. This, however, should not fool us into thinking that this is, must be or can be always the case.

just as the experience of the Sun in the sky is subjective, and the experience of tables is subjective, which is because all experience is subjective.

No, that´s not what I am saying. The sun is a physical object out there. Meaning is not. Meaning is something that we create in our minds. There is no meaning without a person to whom something has meaning.

But that would not entail that the Sun itself, tables themselves, or meanings of words as they are used are "all in the mind" would it?

No, it wouldn´t. And as long as you aren´t willing to distinguish between terms for highly abstract, subjective concepts of indiduals (which happen to carry the same term) and words for physical objects, and as long as you keep concluding from the latter on the former you won´t understand what I am saying.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

If the OP (whick quotes the wiki entry, as quoted above) is not reliable then why does UnreAL13 explicitly state at the top of this page: "There is no reason to clarify the term "Ignosticism" any further. The wiki article clearly defines it for all intents and purposes."

Perhaps we're confusing ourselves as to a final definition versus a tentative one. This definition seems sufficient even if it may be improved upon in the future. But for any of us to say it is the final standard seems mistaken to me.

In addition to my prior request I want to know what it is for a concept of God to be meaningful but for the related term "God" to be meaningless. I have honestly never come across that distinction before, and it's is not intuitive to me precisely what the speaker intends to convey.

Meaning is contingent on the person finding something within the defined thing that gives them a sense of fulfillment or purpose in their life. One can define something as a Creator which died on a tree to cleanse them of their sins and is desiring of a personal relationship and that will give the definition a meaning to that individual who defines God as such. It is difficult, however, to use the term God to apply to that definition as if it is the only adequate term or even a term that does not have competing definitions tht also could use its application. God can be used as a term that applies to a variety of contradictory definitions. I realize we can clarify this, but the problem remains that people seem to insist that the term God only applies to their definition of God when it is clear through any kind of investigation that God can apply to many equally meaningful definitions to varied individuals and thus reach a problem of incoherence of the term's use.

​

But you can't just claim objective incoherence or meaninglessness without giving a standard whereby we can judge is a term or a sentence has meaning. Or you might, but why should anyone believe you? After all, maybe you're just hung over, or don't have sufficient grasp of the language, or something.

I don't think we're in disagreement about meaning in the general sense, moreso we disagree about whether a definition of something transcendent or supernatural has meaning objectively to everyone. I disagree, since I don't find any meaning or purpose in believing there is something like the God you believe in. Not to mention the persistence I have in questioning why your definition should be called God any more than the definition of God as put forth by Deism or Pantheism for two examples. It's not that I deny that YOU can find meaning in this definition you call "God", it's just that 1) I don't find meaning in that "God" or any "God" so far I've seen defined in any way and 2) I don't think the term "God" is adequate since there are so many contradictory definitions attached to that term in simultaneous usage.

I have repeatedly asked for criteria for determining meaninfulness, and IIRC the best that has come our way is something akin to "unfalsifiable definitions are meaningless". So please, for the nth time, would one of you ignostic types please explain the necessary and sufficient conditions of meaningfulness. I have a right to make this request because obviously you feel that the standard I use (the term "God" is found and defined in a good dictionary, and therefore is a meaningful word in English) is not appropriate. I am looking for a general rule of linguistics such that if term x meets these conditions, then term x is meaningful.

I think we're confusing cogency of a term and meaningfulness of a term or concept. Meaningfulness of a concept is easily accepted, but cogency is not. One can define God as many things and people do not see it making basic sense. But they can still accept that the person who presents the definition finds fulfillment and purpose in believing in this thing.

But the cogency and meaningfulness of the term "God" both seem to be questionable since it doesn't make sense to speak of the meaningfulness of a term, since it is not the term, but the thing we understand about the term that gives us fulfillment or purpose. We don't need the term God to feel fulfillment or purpose from believing in it.

And the cogency of the term is what I think ignostics are questioning more accurately. It doesn't make logical sense to apply the same term to contradictory definitions in the same context. As opposed to metaphorical use of apple versus literal use of apple for one example, which is acceptable.

Or if its about questions, then what conditions must be met by questions if they are to be regarded as meanigful?

Questions can be said to be meaningful when they have some sense of falsifiability to their responses. If one cannot demonstrate that the question has any bearing on anything we understand, then there is the possibility of its meaningfulness being called into question. But as I said before, we might be getting confused in questioning the falsifiability of a question about God's existence versus the cogency of the term God and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.

Antony Flew noted the difficulty of the falsifiability of questions about God's existence by saying that as we continue to qualify the things about how God is special in its existence, we get to a point where God migtht as well not exist. This is what an ignostic might be said to be inquiring about.

When did I say that the term "God" ought not be scrutinised? In fact I said in another post that analysing meanings of terms we are working with before we begin was a good analytic philosophy skill. I can't find the post I need to link to so I'll just reiterate the point here of that's OK.

It's the fact that we need to scrutinize that makes the discussion a matter of cogency and objectivity more than meaningfulness in individual senses. Using "God" to describe all these things doesn't seem to make basic sense and even if it did, it seems to create unnecessary confusion.

Look, if you can finally give me the criteria by which a word is to be regarded as meaningful, then we can begin a properly rational debate? Obviously, the fact that a term belongs to the English language and is to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary is not good enough for you. So please, what objective standards or conditions must be met?

Again, there's the difference between a term having meaning and a term having objective meaning, which is what we're disagreeing on in the context of theological language.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

@Quatona; meaning is meaning to someone?

So if I say "I picked the apple from the tree" and you take this to mean "I bought an orange in a shop" that's what my statement means, because thats what is means to you, right? No, what this means is that you do not understand even an elementary sentence in the English language. We are debating whether "God" is menaingful in English, aren't we, rather than some invented language from the school playground or the lunatic asylum?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

@UnreAL13, ok you are skeptical towards theological language. But when you say the term "God" is meaningless I imagine you have a rational standard by which you can judge whether a term (this term, any term) actually has meaning. Unfortunately it seems you don't and are just being skeptical for the sake of it, and what can I do about that? If that's what floats your boat, then so be it, but don't expect me to be either convinced or impressed....

 

[GrowingSmaller]

@ToHoldNothing:
When I ask "what are your criteria for ascribing meaning to a term?" we are hopefully discussing semantics and not trying to rehash the question of the meaning of life.


Also you say that a question is meaningful only if it is falsifiable. What criteria of meaning are you using here? I think you are probably talking about "practical meaning" rather than linguistic semantics. Obviously I can make linguistic sense of the question "Do superstrings exist?" even if I cannot provide a practical proof either way. Well I can make sense of it anyway. Could be in a minority of one, on this forum at least, I suppose. Do you believe that the meaning of a question is the method of its being answered, or some such thing? So that only questions we can answer have meaning?

The way I see it is that a question is a request for information. Ok I may not be able to provide the information, but I have by implication understood the request in thinking about looking for it. Imagine someone trapped in a cell for life. He may wonder, "Is there a world outside these four walls?". Even if he cannot answer the question, the question still has meaning, he understands that "there is" is either true or false, even when he has no proof of which is actually the case.

 

[quatona]

@Quatona; meaning is meaning to someone?

So if I say "I picked the apple from the tree" and you take this to mean "I bought an orange in a shop" that's what my statement means, because thats what is means to you, right?

You´re close, but only close. The first part of the conclusion "that´s what it means" is incomplete, hence meaningless. Whereas the second part of the conclusion "thats (sic!) what it means to you" is correct.
E.g. to a person who doesn´t speak English at all the sentence would mean absolutely nothing. That´s why the term "objective meaning" is ill-chosen.

No, what this means is that you do not understand even an elementary sentence in the English language.

Yes, it would mean that I am not familiar with the way you use these terms (with the semantic agreements and conventions as they are documented in the dictionary), hence I misunderstood you. That´s what ignosticism is stating upfront (before a predictable misunderstanding will occur).
It warns you "be advised that when you use the term "god" I am likely to misunderstand you - before you haven´t defined your term in a way that provides for a meaningful communication I am withholding any statement. This is not only to my protection, but also to yours."

We are debating whether "God" is menaingful in English, aren't we,

Firstly, no: Ignosticism makes a statement about what "god" means or doesn´t mean to the ignostic.
Secondly, yes, correct: We are talking about the term "god" and not about terms like "apple", "tree", "shop", "orange".
And that´s why all these analogies to concrete terms for which agreement and convention function sufficiently for everyday purposes are ignoring the very point.
"Everyone knows what 'apple' means therefore everyone should know what 'god' means" doesn´t cut it.



GrowingSmaller, I have a question:
When - as you do frequently - you extract a small portion from my post (which is explained by the context of the rest of the post) and respond to it as though the rest of the post wasn´t there - what am I to make of this?
I find myself stating that which you keep ignoring over and over again, just to find that instead of adressing it you come up with new absurd analogies and comparisons that ignore the very core of the argument. It´s a bit troublesome for me.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You´re close, but only close. The first part of the conclusion "that´s what it means" is incomplete, hence meaningless. Whereas the second part of the conclusion "thats (sic!) what it means to you" is correct.
E.g. to a person who doesn´t speak English at all the sentence would mean absolutely nothing. That´s why the term "objective meaning" is ill-chosen.

What I mean is that the term "God" has a meaning in the English language, and that is a fact whether someone likes it or not, or acknowledges it or not, or believes it or not. The meaning is found in a dictionary, and is there for all to see.

Yes, it would mean that I am not familiar with the way you use these terms (with the semantic agreements and conventions as they are documented in the dictionary), hence I misunderstood you.

Then you better go learn English then.

That´s what ignosticism is stating upfront (before a predictable misunderstanding will occur).

Well he better go learn English hadn't he?

It warns you "be advised that when you use the term "god" I am likely to misunderstand you - before you haven´t defined your term in a way that provides for a meaningful communication I am withholding any statement. This is not only to my protection, but also to yours."

Ok I tried the same ploy with evolution and people didn't take me seriously. So why ought I take an ignostic seriously. Anyway, I thank goodness I never went into teaching! Some people seem to be deliberately impossible.

Firstly, no: Ignosticism makes a statement about what "god" means or doesn´t mean to the ignostic.

Ok I am discussing English. If someone doesn't understand the language, there is only so much I can do.

Secondly, yes, correct: We are talking about the term "god" and not about terms like "apple", "tree", "shop", "orange".

Ok they are all words, meh.

And that´s why all these analogies to concrete terms for which agreement and convention function sufficiently for everyday purposes are ignoring the very point.

Are you saying the people do not understand the definition of "God" as found in a dictionary? I am not referring to ignostics in particular, but the general fluent English speaker. Whilst they might not have a subtle theological understaning, I have yet to meet someone who apparently has no grasp whatsoever (except fot UnreAL13, that is).

"Everyone knows what 'apple' means therefore everyone should know what 'god' means" doesn´t cut it.

If they don't know, they ought to know where to look.

GrowingSmaller, I have a question:
When - as you do frequently - you extract a small portion from my post (which is explained by the context of the rest of the post) and respond to it as though the rest of the post wasn´t there - what am I to make of this?
I find myself stating that which you keep ignoring over and over again, just to find that instead of adressing it you come up with new absurd analogies and comparisons that ignore the very core of the argument. It´s a bit troublesome for me.

I am only trying to limit the size of my posts.

All I can conclude so far is not that the term "God" has no meaning in the English language, but rather that the ignostic does not have proper grasp. How we are to decide the matter, except by looking in a dictionary, which is (or perhaps ought to be) standard procedure, I am not sure.

As ever, I am open to suggestions...

(...yet remeber there's not a lot I can do with strident responses like "It has meaning only if I say so, and I say it doesn't, so there!").

 

[quatona]

What I mean is that the term "God" has a meaning in the English language, and that is a fact whether someone likes it or not, or acknowledges it or not, or believes it or not. The meaning is found in a dictionary, and is there for all to see.

Well, there are plenty of different meanings found in the dictionary. That´s the first problem.

Ok I tried the same ploy

Again: If your preassumption is that it´s a ploy, all efforts to explain it to you are in vain right from the start.

with evolution and people didn't take me seriously.

I did, and I recommended you to consult experts in natural science.

So why ought I take an ignostic seriously.

One reason to withhold judgement would be that you - as you keep admitting - haven´t yet fully understood what "ignosticism means" (although a look in the dictionary should - according to your own argument - tell you beyond doubt what it means.

Are you saying the people do not understand the definition of "God" as found in a dictionary? I am not referring to ignostics in particular, but the general fluent English speaker.

Well, I have told you what I am saying countless times now. Here it is again:
1. people find several different definitions in the dictionary, because a dictionary lists all the most common usages of a term. Thus, if you mean "god (definition4)" they may understand "god"(definition16).
2. a dictionary gives a rough overview, and the definition provided there may not even mention the particularities that the person using the term finds crucial about it.
3. abstract concepts require different treatment than concrete terms for objects (and the purpose of dictionaries is not to explain the underlying paradigms and thought structures)
4. language is designed to describe that which we deal with within the realm of our existence, our experience, our comprehension. Now, as soon as terms are supposed to point beyond this realm (which is an essential part of most "god"-definitions) our otherwise usable language is facing severe problems. Its left with (explicit or implicit) ex negativo descriptions which do not tell me what you think something is but rather all that which it isn´t.
5. even the meaning of otherwise easy to understand terms is asking for me to understand it as used in an exceptional meaning as soon as it is used in combination with such a "beyond"-term. E.g. "to exist". "Does this biscuit exist?" refers to a concrete object, and doesn´t require much of a philosophical discussion of "existence". "Do thoughts exist?" obviously refers to a different concept, yet also named "to exist". "Does speed exist?", "Do 70mph exist?". We could answer these questions "yes" or "no", depending on how far we are willing to widen the meaning of "to exist". In any case, "70mph exist" use "to exist in a completely different meaning than "this biscuit exists". "Does existence exist? Does non-existence exist?" - here it starts getting really tricky. "Does something that by definition doesn´t display any traits that we use to describe "existence" (e.g. "god") exist? Here it´s finally getting absurd.

All I can conclude so far is not that the term "God" has no meaning in the English language, but rather that the ignostic does not have proper grasp.

Yes, as an ignostic I admit that I have no proper grasp what you mean when saying "god".

How we are to decide the matter,

There is nothing to decide. It´s simply a matter of our purposes: If you want me to understand what you mean you have to explain it to me until I get a grasp what you mean.

except by looking in a dictionary, which is (or ought to be) standard procedure, I am not sure.

For the above listed reasoning (and there are some more, I suspect) the look in the dictionary doesn´t help me with finding out what you mean when saying "god". I have carefully read the dictionary entries, and I still don´t know what you mean when saying "god". I am assuming that you are - like me - interested in functional communication, and that requires that when you say "god" I understand what you mean.

(...yet remeber there's not a lot I can do with responses like "It has meaning only if I say so, and I say it doesn't, so there!").

Except that I have never said this, nor do I say this, nor did I imply this. You keep making this position up for me - despite countless attempts to correct this misunderstanding.
It´s your strawman.
Why you prefer to refute your own strawmen instead of dealing with what I am actually saying I can only guess.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Well, there are plenty of different meanings found in the dictionary. That´s the first problem.

So I say I am a catholic and believe in God, and you genuinely don't know which aspect of the dictionary definition I am refering to? Srsly. Even if you insist you don't I'll very much doubt your sincerity as it would be such an abnormal lack of comprehension and you are a reasonably intelligent person.

Again: If your preassumption is that it´s a ploy, all efforts to explain it to you are in vain right from the start.

No. When a Christian says he believes in the Christian God, in general, excepting perhaps children, they know that he is not referring to Bob Dylan or Tom Cruise. And I dare say that even children do not make that mistake.

I did, and I recommended you to consult experts in natural science.

Ok fine.

One reason to withhold judgement would be that you - as you keep admitting - haven´t yet fully understood what "ignosticism means" (although a look in the dictionary should - according to your own argument - tell you beyond doubt what it means.

You and I know that wikipedia might not be the best source to quote from, and users on an internet forum may be worse still. That is where I have been focusing till now.

Well, I have told you what I am saying countless times now. Here it is again:
1. people find several different definitions in the dictionary, because a dictionary lists all the most common usages of a term. Thus, if you mean "god (definition4)" they may understand "god"(definition16).

Srsly. You think the Pope believes in Dylan or Cruise?

2. a dictionary gives a rough overview, and the definition provided there may not even mention the particularities that the person using the term finds crucial about it.

True. If you want to know specifics, go research a particular religion or a particular theologian....

3. abstract concepts require different treatment than concrete terms for objects (and the purpose of dictionaries is not to explain the underlying paradigms and thought structures).

...

4. language is designed to describe that which we deal with within the realm of our existence, our experience, our comprehension.

Language is designed?

Now, as soon as terms are supposed to point beyond this realm (which is an essential part of most "god"-definitions) our otherwise usable language is facing severe problems.

So you can't experience a unicorn, therefore you don't understand the word "unicorn?"

Its left with (explicit or implicit) ex negativo descriptions which do not tell me what you think something is but rather all that which it isn´t.

Not at all. Not necessarily anyway. If I say for example that God is capable of being experientially conscious in the same way I am, for instance hearing the the clatter of a keyboard, then whats ex negativo about that?

5. even the meaning of otherwise easy to understand terms is asking for me to understand it as used in an exceptional meaning as soon as it is used in combination with such a "beyond"-term. E.g. "to exist". "Does this biscuit exist?" refers to a concrete object, and doesn´t require much of a philosophical discussion of "existence".

Exist. To have place as part of reality.

"Do thoughts exist?" obviously refers to a different concept, yet also named "to exist".

Yes, thoughts exist. And you're right that the concept of thought is different from the concept of biscuit. Well done.

"Does speed exist?", "Do 70mph exist?". We could answer these questions "yes" or "no", depending on how far we are willing to widen the meaning of "to exist".

I think that you'll find that they're not very well formed questions. It's not that the concept of existence needs widening, but that the question needs rephrasing.

In any case, "70mph exist" use "to exist in a completely different meaning than "this biscuit exists". "Does existence exist? Does non-existence exist?" - here it starts getting really tricky.

Tricky, but not insuperable.

"Does something that by definition doesn´t display any traits that we use to describe "existence" (e.g. "god") exist? Here it´s finally getting absurd.

An absurd strawman of your own invention, perhaps. Then again, IIRC it was Barth (or another modern) who said that to talk of God's existence was a mistake. That's not grounds to dismiss all theolgy out of hand, though, is it?

Yes, as an ignostic I admit that I have no proper grasp what you mean when saying "god".

Ok, I have tried.

There is nothing to decide. It´s simply a matter of our purposes: If you want me to understand what you mean you have to explain it to me until I get a grasp what you mean.

I suppose so, but i refer you back to the top of the present post. You think the Pope religiously believes in Bob Dylan. Srsly.

For the above listed reasoning (and there are some more, I suspect) the look in the dictionary doesn´t help me with finding out what you mean when saying "god". I have carefully read the dictionary entries, and I still don´t know what you mean when saying "god". I am assuming that you are - like me - interested in functional communication, and that requires that when you say "god" I understand what you mean.

Ok, but who's to say where the blame lies. Maybe you are just a slow learner. Maybe I am a bad teacher. Maybe I am trying to teach an impossible subject. How are we to decide which is the case?

Except that I have never said this, nor do I say this, nor did I imply this. You keep making this position up for me - despite countless attempts to correct this misunderstanding.
It´s your strawman.
Why you prefer to refute your own strawmen instead of dealing with what I am actually saying I can only guess.

So you accept thatthe term "God" might mean something, only you fail to understand the explanations, perhaps through fault of your own - even though you may not know that to be the case?

 

[quatona]

So I say I am a catholic and believe in God, and you genuinely don't know which aspect of the dictionary definition I am refering to? Srsly. Even if you insist you don't I'll very much doubt your sincerity as it would be such an abnormal lack of comprehension and you are a reasonably intelligent person.

See, you are starting to explain yourself, and that´s the way towards meaningful communication. After all, I didn´t say that "god" can not be used as a meaningful communication under any circumstances. It can be done.

Of course, new problems arise. If, e.g., I don´t believe that a supernatural entity can impregnate a woman - would I have to conclude that I don´t believe that the god of your concept exists?

No. When a Christian says he believes in the Christian God, in general, excepting perhaps children, they know that he is not referring to Bob Dylan or Tom Cruise. And I dare say that even children do not make that mistake.

Again, you are offering helpful qualifications: "When a Christian says..." and "...in the Christian God". That´s exactly the beginning of the path ignosticism asks for.

Yes, I´m pretty sure hardly anyone would think you were referring to Bob Dylan or Tom Cruise - but knowing that something is not Tom Cruise nor Bob Dylan still doesn´t tell me much about what it is. I don´t know what it is with these ridiculous examples.

Srsly. You think the Pope believes in Dylan or Cruise?

No, this isn´t a serious response. We weren´t talking about the Pope nor about Dylan or Cruise, to begin with.

True. If you want to know specifics, go research a particular religion or a particular theologian....

Actually, when talking with a person about their god concept I would rather be interested in their specific god concept. That´s because I would naturally expect the same in reverse: When I want to communicate my convictions I feel neglected when the person opposite would start asking other people for their opinion as a response.




...

Language is designed?

Sure. What did you think it is? It´s a permanent collective design process.

So you can't experience a unicorn, therefore you don't understand the word "unicorn?"

As far as I know unicorns are not defined as inhabiting the supernatural realm, being non-physical, eternal, omnipotent, beyond our comprehension etc.). Do you even read what I write?


Not at all. Not necessarily anyway. If I say for example that God is capable of being experientially conscious in the same way I am, for instance hearing the the clatter of a keyboard, then whats ex negativo about that?

Exist. To have place as part of reality.

Exactly: When we are talking about places, parts and reality in this context, there isn´t much doubt whether this cookie exists or not.

Yes, thoughts exist. And you're right that the concept of thought is different from the concept of biscuit. Well done.

I think that you'll find that they're not very well formed questions. It's not that the concept of existence needs widening, but that the question needs rephrasing.

BINGO!

An absurd strawman of your own invention, perhaps.

So what does it mean for god to "have place as part of reality"? What does "having a place" mean for an non-physical being? What does "being part of reality" mean for a omnipresent being? What does "reality" mean beyond the reality that we observe and experience?

See, we could easily and immediately agree that god exists. Thoughts exist (have place as part of reality), you think of god (have place as part of reality), hence god exists as your thought. Case closed. I reckon that this agreement would strike you as unsatisfactory since it is based on equivocations of "exist, reality, etc.". If god exists, god would "exist" in a way that required a completely different concept of "existence" - unique for god, therefore any other concept of "existence" doesn´t help with making "god exists" a meaningful sentence.

I suppose so, but i refer you back to the top of the present post. You think the Pope religiously believes in Bob Dylan. Srsly.

If that´s your best attempt at responding seriously I honestly don´t expect much from this conversation anymore.
The sentence you wrote this in response to was:
"If you want me to understand what you mean you have to explain it to me until I get a grasp what you mean." (emphasis added)
Please try again. If possible without these irrelevant pope and Dylan references. And without telling me what I think, please.

Ok, but who's to say where the blame lies. Maybe you are just a slow learner. Maybe I am a bad teacher. Maybe I am trying to teach an impossible subject. How are we to decide which is the case?

I´m not interested in finding someone to blame. If that´s your concern you will have to discuss it with someone else.
Again: the dictionary alone doesn´t tell me what you mean when saying god (which you have implicitly conceded when you pointed towards necessary additional qualifications and information).
Thinking of communication failure in terms of "blame" doesn´t help with anything. It would be like asking "Is the guitar or the amplifier to blame when the cable between them is broken".
Rather, it comes down to questions like:
Who has which interests?
Who has which means to his disposal in order to pursue these interests?
Provided we both have the interest that you understand what I mean: if you don´t understand what I mean (and I am not talking about the pope or Dylan here, just in case you are tempted to fall back on this assumption), all you can do is ask me questions. All I can do is give you further explanations.
Ignosticism anticipates this situation.

So you accept thatthe term "God" might mean something,

Countless times I have emphasized that I am assuming the term "God" means something to you. I´m not sure why this has to be repeated so often.

only you fail to understand the explanations,

Not really. When a person comes up to me and asks me "Do you believe in god?" I haven´t even heard a single explanation from him yet that could tell me what he means.

perhaps through fault of your own - even though you may not know that to be the case?

Again: I´m not in the faulting business. If it makes you comfortable feel free to assume that when our communication fails it´s all my fault. It won´t help me understand what you mean, though.
However, beyond a certain point of continuous miscommunication you would also be free to decide that it´s not worth the effort.
I personally am pretty close to this point, btw. I keep noticing that my explanations do not help you understand my concepts, from your feedback I keep noticing that they prompt you make conclusions that may be well founded in your thought patterns but are absurd in mine (basically, every single of your "So you are saying...[...Dylan...pope...meaning is at the whim...rape...orange....]" attempts at paraphrasing what you understand me saying are leaving me clueless how communication could go so wrong, and how I could possibly improve it. )
One witty definition of "insanity" is "repeating the same and expecting different results". I´m afraid that by this standard our conversation has already proven my insanity.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

When I ask "what are your criteria for ascribing meaning to a term?" we are hopefully discussing semantics and not trying to rehash the question of the meaning of life.

Then we're discussing definition and semantics, not purpose and meaning in a personal or existential sense. That much needs to be qualified. This ceases to be about what you personally think God to be from your experience and becomes simply trying to make some objective definition. Which, imho, you probably will fail at, even among fellow theists, lol.

Also you say that a question is meaningful only if it is falsifiable. What criteria of meaning are you using here? I think you are probably talking about "practical meaning" rather than linguistic semantics. Obviously I can make linguistic sense of the question "Do superstrings exist?" even if I cannot provide a practical proof either way. Well I can make sense of it anyway. Could be in a minority of one, on this forum at least, I suppose. Do you believe that the meaning of a question is the method of its being answered, or some such thing? So that only questions we can answer have meaning?

Only questions we can answer in a sense that we could also demonstrate their opposite to be true might be said to have the most significant meaning. I can demonstrate that we own a cat, but you can also demonstrate a situation where we don't own a cat anymore, such as when they die or run away. I suppose this is where the question of god's existence especially becomes meaningless and superfluous. You can't really demonstrate either way, so in my estimation, it doesn't matter anyway to even be concerned.

But we're talking in this context about a coherent definition/meaning, not a personl/existential meaning, like you seeing God as a Trinity, for instance, if I'm not mistaken.

The way I see it is that a question is a request for information. Ok I may not be able to provide the information, but I have by implication understood the request in thinking about looking for it. Imagine someone trapped in a cell for life. He may wonder, "Is there a world outside these four walls?". Even if he cannot answer the question, the question still has meaning, he understands that "there is" is either true or false, even when he has no proof of which is actually the case.

If we're talking about purely subjective meanings, I suppose this would be the case, but if you're trying to communicate the idea of "God" in some objective sense to an outsider like myself, even if I was born into the Christian tradition,you seem to reach a block of sorts in communicating it in a way that makes rational or logical sense.

With the cell example, we're talking about him inquiring whether there is a world in a subjective sense, whereas asking whether there is a world outside the cell in an objective sense would require there to be others that exist outside the cell to begin with, though an objective truth seems to be true by definition whether we ask the question or not.

 

[UnReAL13]

@UnreAL13, ok you are skeptical towards theological language. But when you say the term "God" is meaningless I imagine you have a rational standard by which you can judge whether a term (this term, any term) actually has meaning. Unfortunately it seems you don't and are just being skeptical for the sake of it, and what can I do about that? If that's what floats your boat, then so be it, but don't expect me to be either convinced or impressed....

The rational standard is that there's no way to rationalize theological terminology. I can't help it if you can't verify or falsify any random definition of "god". The burden of proof is on you, the believer, not me, the skeptic. I'm simply asking the question "What is meant by god?" It's not my fault that you can't justify your term. And it's not just "any term" we're dealing with here, it's the most ambiguous one of them all. The End.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

See, you are starting to explain yourself, and that´s the way towards meaningful communication. After all, I didn´t say that "god" can not be used as a meaningful communication under any circumstances. It can be done.

Of course, new problems arise. If, e.g., I don´t believe that a supernatural entity can impregnate a woman - would I have to conclude that I don´t believe that the god of your concept exists?

Why shouldn't you? Its a free world.

Again, you are offering helpful qualifications: "When a Christian says..." and "...in the Christian God". That´s exactly the beginning of the path ignosticism asks for.

Ok agreed good tech. We don't all want to be like Sarah Palin do we?

Yes, I´m pretty sure hardly anyone would think you were referring to Bob Dylan or Tom Cruise - but knowing that something is not Tom Cruise nor Bob Dylan still doesn´t tell me much about what it is. I don´t know what it is with these ridiculous examples.

So you wouldn't be confiusing "rock'n'roll God" with the trinity if a Christian said he believed in God (well, CF user recieved aside that is)? SO you wouldn't need that much disambiguation, and would have an idea of what is meant....

No, this isn´t a serious response. We weren´t talking about the Pope nor about Dylan or Cruise, to begin with.

But you said you would have to ask which God concept a believer believed in...

Actually, when talking with a person about their god concept I would rather be interested in their specific god concept. That´s because I would naturally expect the same in reverse: When I want to communicate my convictions I feel neglected when the person opposite would start asking other people for their opinion as a response.

Ok.


...

Sure. What did you think it is? It´s a permanent collective design process.

Language is a means of communication. maybe some designing goes on, but I haven't seen or done much.

As far as I know unicorns are not defined as inhabiting the supernatural realm, being non-physical, eternal, omnipotent, beyond our comprehension etc.). Do you even read what I write?

Did you even read what I write. You start off by asking for my definition of God, and then feedback with God concepts I never even mentioned. Some of those concepts (how something might be nonphysical and nonspatiotemporal, but omnipresent I do not know).

So what does it mean for god to "have place as part of reality"? What does "having a place" mean for an non-physical being?

Belonging to the class of existing things.

What does "being part of reality" mean for a omnipresent being? What does "reality" mean beyond the reality that we observe and experience?

Did I say God was omnipresent?

See, we could easily and immediately agree that god exists. Thoughts exist (have place as part of reality), you think of god (have place as part of reality), hence god exists as your thought. Case closed.

Hmmmm...

I reckon that this agreement would strike you as unsatisfactory since it is based on equivocations of "exist, reality, etc.". If god exists, god would "exist" in a way that required a completely different concept of "existence" - unique for god, therefore any other concept of "existence" doesn´t help with making "god exists" a meaningful sentence.

No he exists and is real. There has to be an end of explanations somewhere.

If that´s your best attempt at responding seriously I honestly don´t expect much from this conversation anymore.

Apologies. I thought from the way you claimed to have no idea what a person meant when he said "I believe in God"....

The sentence you wrote this in response to was:
"If you want me to understand what you mean you have to explain it to me until I get a grasp what you mean." (emphasis added)
Please try again. If possible without these irrelevant pope and Dylan references. And without telling me what I think, please.

Ok God is a creator. Is that understood? Do I need to elaborate on the concept of "creator" here?

I´m not interested in finding someone to blame. If that´s your concern you will have to discuss it with someone else.
Again: the dictionary alone doesn´t tell me what you mean when saying god (which you have implicitly conceded when you pointed towards necessary additional qualifications and information).

Ok I will give my impression.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Then we're discussing definition and semantics, not purpose and meaning in a personal or existential sense. That much needs to be qualified. This ceases to be about what you personally think God to be from your experience and becomes simply trying to make some objective definition. Which, imho, you probably will fail at, even among fellow theists, lol.

Ignostic: Dictionary definitions don't give meaning to me.
Theist: So what does?
Ignostic: *Useless waffle*....

Only questions we can answer in a sense that we could also demonstrate their opposite to be true might be said to have the most significant meaning.

Well thanks for clearing that up. How exactly do we go about deciding what has the "most significant meaning" or is this simply a concept you have invented ad hoc in an attempt to confuse everybody present? We are talking about linguistic meaning, aren't we?

I can demonstrate that we own a cat, but you can also demonstrate a situation where we don't own a cat anymore, such as when they die or run away. I suppose this is where the question of god's existence especially becomes meaningless and superfluous.

Unless someone things by "God" I mean "cat" which would not be that unlikely given posters here. For some strange reason, its usually the people who don't actually believe in God that would make that kind of connection.

You can't really demonstrate either way, so in my estimation, it doesn't matter anyway to even be concerned.

IMHO non sequitir.

But we're talking in this context about a coherent definition/meaning, not a personl/existential meaning, like you seeing God as a Trinity, for instance, if I'm not mistaken.

Linguistic meaning, rather than personal significance. For instance you might say "She says she loves me, but that means nothing to me after what she has done". Her words would still have linguistic meaning, but loose all personal significance in your life.

If we're talking about purely subjective meanings, I suppose this would be the case, but if you're trying to communicate the idea of "God" in some objective sense to an outsider like myself, even if I was born into the Christian tradition,you seem to reach a block of sorts in communicating it in a way that makes rational or logical sense.

ANd thats my fault, it it. I am not quite sure what the cause of the blockage is myself.

With the cell example, we're talking about him inquiring whether there is a world in a subjective sense, whereas asking whether there is a world outside the cell in an objective sense would require there to be others that exist outside the cell to begin with, though an objective truth seems to be true by definition whether we ask the question or not.

What? Either there is a world outside or not. Even if he's not allowed outside, the question "Is there a world outside?" is still a valid expression in the English language. Please don't try and overelaborate, thats using intelligence to do battle against common sense.

 

[quatona]

Why shouldn't you? Its a free world.

Ok. God doesn´t exist.

Ok agreed good tech. We don't all want to be like Sarah Palin do we?
So you wouldn't be confiusing "rock'n'roll God" with the trinity if a Christian said he believed in God (well, CF user recieved aside that is)? SO you wouldn't need that much disambiguation, and would have an idea of what is meant....

An idea of what it is not, to be precise.



But you said you would have to ask which God concept a believer believed in...

Language is a means of communication. maybe some designing goes on, but I haven't seen or done much.

I´m not sure why you got so hung up about the word "designing", but oh well. How do you think languages come into being?

You start off by asking for my definition of God, and then feedback with God concepts I never even mentioned. Some of those concepts (how something might be nonphysical and nonspatiotemporal, but omnipresent I do not know).

Ok, so you start explaining what your god concept is (actually you still tell me what it is not, but that´s better than nothing). That´s good.
At this point we would have to make a decision:
Are we continuing by discussing what the general problems are when I hear "God", or are we going to discuss your God concept?
Both is fine with me - it just requires different approaches.

Belonging to the class of existing things.

Ah, "existing" is defined as "having a place in reality", and "having a place in reality" is defined as "belonging to the class of existing things". So "existing" is defined as "belonging to the class of existent things".

But now I have learned that the god of your concept is a thing.

Did I say God was omnipresent?

No, I didn´t know the specifics of your god concept. And in order to prevent such misconceptions on my part I take the ignostic position: Tell me what you want to talk about with me first before we talk about it.
(Btw, as far as I know it´s part of the RCC doctrine that god is omnipresent.)

Ok God is a creator. Is that understood? Do I need to elaborate on the concept of "creator" here?

Yes - in case you want me to consider your "creator" concept (and not mistake it for someone else´s), that is.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Ignostic: Dictionary definitions don't give meaning to me.
Theist: So what does?
Ignostic: *Useless waffle*....

I don't think I denied dictionary definitions as having a use. But they are only so canonical in terms of people's general understandings. Just because you can try to rationalize and objectify God as a concept doesn't mean it will be accepted as such. It just doesn't seem to fly theologically, since you're revealed by God regarding God's definition in some limited sense, right?

Well thanks for clearing that up. How exactly do we go about deciding what has the "most significant meaning" or is this simply a concept you have invented ad hoc in an attempt to confuse everybody present? We are talking about linguistic meaning, aren't we?

I think I'm talking about coherence more than linguistic meaning in the general sense of understanding. But even if you explain God as something with immense power, knowledge and presence, I don't have to believe it is anything more than a sufficiently complicated alien or energy being ala Star Trek. In short, your definition can make sense, but usually at the cost of the perfection you generally ascribe to that defined entity in question. Significant meaning to an individual is different than relevant or practical definition. Why define something in such a way that there's no possibility of any kind of objective verification if your whole purpose was to try to demonstrate the objectivity of the thing in question: God?

Unless someone things by "God" I mean "cat" which would not be that unlikely given posters here. For some strange reason, its usually the people who don't actually believe in God that would make that kind of connection.

I'm not making a confusion of your basic meaning, I'm only saying it doesn't seem to make logical sense that there would need to necessarily exist such a being in any cosmological or ontological sense. Heck, even rational sense. The world doesn't have to possess some extant thing like God to suddenly become more rational or logical to a person. World's quite logical to me without it or with it, it actually makes little difference in the long run.

Linguistic meaning, rather than personal significance. For instance you might say "She says she loves me, but that means nothing to me after what she has done". Her words would still have linguistic meaning, but loose all personal significance in your life.

It would still be linguistically coherent, but it wouldn't be significant in the sense that it gives me any form of fulfillment.

ANd thats my fault, it it. I am not quite sure what the cause of the blockage is myself.

The fact that you think you can present a completely objective definition of something that you would probably admit beforehand you believe in primarily through faith and any rational explanation or definition you present is for the faithful, not the unbeliever so much.

What? Either there is a world outside or not. Even if he's not allowed outside, the question "Is there a world outside?" is still a valid expression in the English language. Please don't try and overelaborate, thats using intelligence to do battle against common sense.

Sometimes one needs to use intelligence to counter fallacious intuitions and sometimes basic intuitions are a simpler alternative to overcomplication with intellect, I agree. In this case, you seem to think your intuition of God somehow justifies it as something that we can objectively define. I disagree. Therein lies one problem.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't think I denied dictionary definitions as having a use. But they are only so canonical in terms of people's general understandings. Just because you can try to rationalize and objectify God as a concept doesn't mean it will be accepted as such. It just doesn't seem to fly theologically, since you're revealed by God regarding God's definition in some limited sense, right?

I thought I understood you, then came that final sentence.

As for the former, I am not trying to convince anyone that God exists, only that a definiton of God canmake sense in the Elglish language. I think we all agree on that except for the OP, UnreAL13, and he seems to be sick of the whole thread.

I think I'm talking about coherence more than linguistic meaning in the general sense of understanding.

yeah like square triangle might have a meaning, but not cohere as a conecpt.

But even if you explain God as something with immense power, knowledge and presence, I don't have to believe it is anything more than a sufficiently complicated alien or energy being ala Star Trek.

Ok, fine. I am not on a mission to convince you otherwise, yet I suppose you believe I believe that God is actually not an alien.

In short, your definition can make sense, but usually at the cost of the perfection you generally ascribe to that defined entity in question.

Maybe, I have never got that far in a debate. Yet I doubt that I will have to say "either alien or imperfect" if that's your contention.

Significant meaning to an individual is different than relevant or practical definition. Why define something in such a way that there's no possibility of any kind of objective verification if your whole purpose was to try to demonstrate the objectivity of the thing in question: God?

Thats a point, but I am not trying to produce an objective/testable proof of Gods existence, and never was.

I'm not making a confusion of your basic meaning, I'm only saying it doesn't seem to make logical sense that there would need to necessarily exist such a being in any cosmological or ontological sense. Heck, even rational sense. The world doesn't have to possess some extant thing like God to suddenly become more rational or logical to a person. World's quite logical to me without it or with it, it actually makes little difference in the long run.

Ok fine, I have felt the same way year after year in the past.

It would still be linguistically coherent, but it wouldn't be significant in the sense that it gives me any form of fulfillment.

Actually I get a sense of fulfilment from goint to church (at present anyway). Still thats not a proof that God exists, I know that.

The fact that you think you can present a completely objective definition of something that you would probably admit beforehand you believe in primarily through faith and any rational explanation or definition you present is for the faithful, not the unbeliever so much.

I am not quite sure what you mean by an "objective definition"....

Sometimes one needs to use intelligence to counter fallacious intuitions and sometimes basic intuitions are a simpler alternative to overcomplication with intellect, I agree. In this case, you seem to think your intuition of God somehow justifies it as something that we can objectively define. I disagree. Therein lies one problem.

Objective definition, sorry??? Is that a definition that exists on paper rather than in my mind? Or something, when defined, we can all look at with a telescope?