Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What standard of "meaning" are you using? Are you saying the the "words" in the argument had no recognised usage, or that rules of grammar or syntax were broken, or what? Or areyou stipulating a new meaning for the term "meaining"?
Why not?
It would be helpful if you expanded on your reasons when you make a claim, Raze...
It was. We'd need to see the straw ontological argument, of course, before we could fully appreciate whatever's imagined.Sorry, I thought it was obvious
Philosophy's bad reputation is self-inflicted. The names they make a fuss over were all full of nonsense.I am not sure if this is specific to me, but I get the sense that deriding philsophy as "meaningless word games" is associated with Wittgenstein's concept of "language games". Then in one fell swoop the whole of analytic stlye philsophy (which I think utilises modern approaches to logic and meaning and applies them to philosophy, and was even itself perhaps the mother of the trend for the perjorative label "meaningless" with the Logical Positivists and their verification principle), might be brushed off as meaningless word games itself.
Guilt though some kind of association, especially when - and perhaps only when - it suits the interlocutor.
Maybe on a tangent, but couldn't you turn the ontological argument on its head and "prove" that since we can conceive of a rock so heavy that god can't lift it that such a maximally heavy rock must exist?
Ok, I think now I see the distinction you are trying to communicate.I never meant to imply that you were. I never thought you were, at any rate.
However, if we start saying such things, then they are meaningless, and there's not much point in saying them. So we might as well not.
But as said before, if the claim carries no meaning, then there's no point in making it.
Again, I see the distinction you are trying to make. However, since the axiomatic and inevitable framework and limitation of my thinking is the logical possible, the logically impossible doesn´t tell me anything of any use.So we can say, "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" to make some claim about God, and who knows, it might even be true. But since it tells us nothing of any use, such a claim makes no difference to us at all.
Ok, but - as you concede further down - this is not a problem of logic. It´s merely clashing with our experience with physicality.But saying, "Jesus took seven loaves, and gave two each to his twelve disciples, and not one was left over, and all were used, and more were not wanted," then we can accept it as being something which is possible for Jesus to do, even though it is not possible for us to do it.
Now, this is an example of illogicality.We could say that even though God hardened Pharaoh's heart, the hardening of the heart was caused by Pharaoh, not God. God is causing something, but at the same time, he is not the cause of it.
I think that´s close, but not quite correct: Just like "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" may carry meaning in another realm or another language, logical contradictions (like A = not A) may carry meaning elsewhere, but not to me. Hence I won´t go there.Then we are getting to the point where we discount logical impossibilities as being possible for God simply because we don't want to deal with them.
I am all for denying the endurance of objects (I am even all for denying the existence of objects in theory), but where would that leave theists who appeal to an unchanging eternal God?We say it is a rule object can not be "A" and "not-A" at the same time. But we say that it can be "A" at one time, and then "not-A" at another. Why do we make this concession? Why not just deny the endurance of objects, in theory at least?
dharmakaya?I am all for denying the endurance of objects (I am even all for denying the existence of objects in theory), but where would that leave theists who appeal to an unchanging eternal God?
Having said that, the stone argument fails because it pre-supposes that God has physical human attributes, which we all agree he hasn't.
It is perhaps the "perfect rock" for atheists to talk about. But that may well be meaningless word games, eh?
So what does a square circle look like?
Ok, I think now I see the distinction you are trying to communicate.
I don´t agree, though. Rather, I submit that a e.g. a logical self-contradiction doesn´t carry any intelligible meaning.
Again, I see the distinction you are trying to make. However, since the axiomatic and inevitable framework and limitation of my thinking is the logical possible, the logically impossible doesn´t tell me anything of any use.
Now, this is an example of illogicality.
Feel free to call me close-minded or lacking in power of imagination, but I can´t make sense of this statement and even less it seems to be of any use to me. It doesn´t carry any meaning. Just like "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" I might allow for it to be meaningful in God´s eyes - but it certainly is meaningless to me.
But let´s, for argument sake carry that a bit further: If we say "God can cause something and at the same time not cause it", we certainly can also say "God is omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time", and the entire question for God´s omnipotence would be pointless, anyway.
We simply have left the realm where we can reason. Now, everyone can do so if they wish - but I don´t understand why they pretend to reason, nonetheless. Why even start to consider anything pertaining God by means of reason when the unreasonable will trump reason in the end?
"God is omnipotent". Why even tackle of defend this claim? Even if it could be demonstrated that God is not omnipotent, He still could be omnipotent although not being omnipotent.
I think that´s close, but not quite correct: Just like "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" may carry meaning in another realm or another language, logical contradictions (like A = not A) may carry meaning elsewhere, but not to me. Hence I won´t go there.
The entire "possible for God" is - in my opinion - just an evasion. The actual meaning of "God can do the logically impossible" is "I want to make illogical claims about God, yet be taken seriously." Why the heck would I allow anyone that exceptional prerogative when it comes to the topic of his choice? Why do people even have the guts to claim something to be beyond logic? What keeps me from postulating that e.g. mechanics are beyond logic and therefore I can make illogical claims about mechanics yet be taken seriously?
The only reasonable response (as far as I am concerned) to "I want the prerogative to make illogical claims and want you to consider them to be meaningful and valid arguments, nonetheless" is "No, rejected. This is beyond the scope of that which I am capable of." Even if the person asking for this right would allow me the same right in return.
Even less I would invite theists to engage in this kind of absurdity by demanding their God to do the logically impossible.
I beg to differ. "Conclusion" is a term that has a particular meaning derived from logic. The very criticism of statements that don´t follow from their premises is that they aren´t conclusions (they are non sequiturs, they don´t follow).If we have a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises, it's still a conclusion.
Of course I will concede that there is a difference between them (as is between any two different statements) - I´m just not seeing how the latter is any more meaningful than the first.But there's a differenece between saying "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" and saying "Pharaoh hardened his own heart, even though it was God who did it."
No, it tells us it was God.But it does tell us who hardened Pharaoh's heart - Pharaoh himself!
God would have to be omnipotent in order to be not omnipotent (while being omnipotent at the same time)? No, he would have to be not omnipotent - as is clearly stated by the premise.Perhaps, but wouldn't God need to be omnipotent in order to do that?
So do I get that right: I just need to declare something to be beyond logic, and you will be hard-pressed to accept this premise?True, but if that's just the way God is, then we can't refuse to accept it on the grounds that we don't understand it.
Maybe to God, but not to me. My conceptualization is bound by logic.But if they carry meaning for God, then that's the important thing.
I am not sure where you draw the line between legitimate use and abuse here.I do agree with you there. This whole thing does have the potential to be misused.
Yes, that´s why we don´t hear sparrows praising the benefits of quantum mechanics - and rightly so: We would know (by virtue of your very premise that they don´t even have any clue what they are talking about. Yet, we hear humans praising the benefits and superiority of illogicality.Again, true, but then again, a sparrow would likely say the same thing about quantum mechanics.
I see no reason to take the Bible at face value, in the first place.But if we take the Bible at face value, then it is likely that God already has.
Of course I will concede that there is a difference between them (as is between any two different statements) - I´m just not seeing how the latter is any more meaningful than the first.
No, it tells us it was God.
God would have to be omnipotent in order to be not omnipotent (while being omnipotent at the same time)? No, he would have to be not omnipotent - as is clearly stated by the premise.
(That´s the very problem: All you get is word salad and category errors, once you allow for illogical statements).
So do I get that right: I just need to declare something to be beyond logic, and you will be hard-pressed to accept this premise?
Maybe to God, but not to me. My conceptualization is bound by logic.
"The most basic axiom of Fairies is that 'Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk'". - so does that render this statement meaningful to me? No.
Am I under any obligation to accept any of the preassumptions. No.
Just because someone requests me to accept nonsense as sense doesn´t put any burden whatsoever on me.
At least I would ask for the same right. That might make for a nice surreal and absurd conversation and be fun as long as it lasts...add some drugs, and we could have some real fun.
I am not sure where you draw the line between legitimate use and abuse here.
Yes, that´s why we don´t hear sparrows praising the benefits of quantum mechanics - and rightly so: We would know (by virtue of your very premise that they don´t even have any clue what they are talking about. Yet, we hear humans praising the benefits and superiority of illogicality.
Your analogy has some serious flaws, don´t you think?
Actually, we are talking about a sparrow who tells his fellow sparrows that quantum mechanics is the best thing since sliced bread ("but please don´t ask me what intelligible statements it makes, or how it makes any sense"). In fact, we are talking about a sparrow who propagates that "Purple quick to loud because the entropy desk" is the ultimate wisdom ("but don´t ask me what that´s supposed to mean").
Personally, I would encourage every sparrow to rigorously refuse to discuss quantum mechanics.
I see no reason to take the Bible at face value, in the first place.
I don´t think it´s much of a concession, but: When utter nonsense and alleged ultimate "truth" become indistinguishable, I´ll just refuse to play.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?