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.
If "god" is just a word without a definition it has no meaning. Consequently, "god exists" has no meaning, either.
I would have no problems agreeing that "god exists" since I can define the word as whatever I wish to define it as.
Sure does. It has a definition, after all.
Doesn´t really matter but:
No. There is only one pen next to me on my desktop.
No, I don´t think that this is how it works. I think that first there is a concept, then we give it a name. At least that´s how it works for me.
"In the end"..."you start with names"???
That doesn´t make sense to me.
Personally, I experience myself starting with concepts/ideas, and then possibly give them names.
But ok, when you think philosophical systems start with words/names without properties and definitions and throwing out a word already functions as an axiom, you shouldn´t have any problems answering the following question straightforward:
Do you or don´t you agree with/accept the axiom that Zisensontar exists?
Since I know that there are denominations in Christianity that do not share your concept of a personal, intentionally acting, purpose/meaning-giving, authoritative God, my rejection of the axiom that there is a predetermined/inherent meaning/purpose to my/our existence/life (or life/existence as a general concept) wouldn´t even necessarily preclude me from being a Christian.
So what does it go after for?
You must have something first, so you can reason if you want to believe it.
That's backwards. You could never use your brain in the first place to come up with an axiom without prior acts of reasoning. You can never "have something [an axiom] first" in order to reason. You could not even understand the need for axioms using your approach.
All you can do is consider your life experience, and ask yourself what axioms are needed to make sense of those experiences.
eudaimonia,
Mark
If you say it exists, then I accept it for the moment. Then I want to see the definition/argument. Zisensontar is just a symbol (a name space). It could be anything.
Twice "no".I have a feeling that this understanding could be personality related. I tend to accept things until I know it is false. I feel you go the other way.
1. I have no problem whatsoever to deal with a hypothetical, or to assume that a statement is correct for the sake of the argument. Au contraire, I think this is a valid and productive way of investigating the accuracy of a statement. E.g. it´s the first step of a "reductio ad absurdum". I use this approach all the time, and if you look back you will find that I have done that several times in this thread.
2. This is not the point or problem we have been discussing, anyway. The question we have been discussing was: What makes an axiom, and my position is: An empty word doesn´t make an axiom. An idea/concept (whether it is labeled or not) does.
What indeed I find myself unable to do is:
Agreeing or disagreeing (or being anything but indifferent towards) a verbal construction in which the keyword is undefined.
Such a verbal construction isn´t a (substantiated or unsubstantiated) statement, it isn´t accurate or inaccurate, it isn´t a theory, it isn´t a hypothesis, it isn´t an axiom, it isn´t even nonsense. It´s nothing but an empty verbal shell. I am unable to have an opinion about the accuracy of its content - because it doesn´t contain anything.
Well, unfortunately I don´t know what Zisensontar is supposed to be, either, and I have no argument.If you say it exists, then I accept it for the moment. Then I want to see the definition/argument.
I just brought it up because your position was that a verbal construction is an axiom already at a point when there isn´t even a definition to its keyword.
Furthermore, you said that from such an "axiom" everything else followed logically and necessarily. Now, you were the one who agreed with the "axiom" I quoted, so it´s up to you to show what follows logically and necessarily from this verbal construction.
BINGO.Zisensontar is just a symbol (a name space). It could be anything.
Exactly my point.
Even worse, it could not even be anything but a an empty word (i.e. not even a symbol).
Nothing follows logically and necessarily from the verbal construction "Zisensontar exists" because at this point "Zisensontar" has no idea/concept attached to it. It isn´t a statement, it isn´t an axiom.
Likewise, the verbal construction "God exists" (as long as "God" is an empty word without a concept/idea attached to it) isn´t an axiom and not even a statement. Nothing follows from it logically or necessarily.
An axiom is a concept, not a word. A word without meaning attached to it doesn´t allow for an axiom.
What I am trying to show you is that you have it backwards. Nobody needs a word like "Zisensontar" or "God", unless they want to communicate a concept/idea. The idea/concept is first.
Examples:
a. someone has the axiomatic idea that the universe must be created, hence there must be a creator entity, which he will call "God".
b. someone feels that morality is unsatisfactory when it is subject to subjective opinion. Hence he axiomatically creates the concept of a supernatural moral authority, which he may call "God".
c. someone feels that there should be an "objective" meaning/purpose to existence. Hence he will axiomatically assume a supernatural authoritative purpose-giver.
None of these properties (creator entity, moral authority, authority on the purpose of existence) follows naturally, necessarily or logically (or at all) from forming a word (be it "Zisensontar" or "God").
The assumed properties are the axiomatic assumptions.
If I remember correctly they e.g. have "Universalists" or "Unitiarian" in their name.May I know which Christian denomination(s) you referred to? This is important to me.
How could I possibly know what your idea/concept/brand of Christianity is?did not describe the Christianity because this OP assumes that people know something about it.
Again, allow me a little bit of feedback:The purpose is not to convince people, but is to seek good opinions of opposition.
That´s a bit odd a response to my statement that I first would have to know what exactly you believe before I am even entertaining the idea of criticizing your beliefs.You may not interested in what I believe, but I am interested in your criticism of Christianity.
Yes, we can - if only we demand everyone to accept the unnecessary assumptions that it is founded upon.We CAN NOT make up, in theory or in practice, a perfect system about human, no matter how many axioms are introduced (the Utopian society is NOT perfect).
Not if you first have to agree that you will accept its unnecessary assumptions.You tell me a perfect system about human, and I can pick out its problems quite easily.
Well, in the development of this thread it has become clear that you have no answers to all possible questions, but instead reserve the right to shoot them down or evade answering them in a straightforward manner when they are conflicting with the paradigms and axioms underlying your beliefs.Again, the perfect here means that the system has internal, logically consistent, answer to all possible questions.
Depends on what exactly you wish to hear an argument against.If I suggested that Christianity is a perfect philosophical system, how would you argue against it?
Well, this would be a pretty easy requirement to meet.What is perfect? I think you may say that it is something you, or anyone else, can not find anything wrong with it. For example, I can say that something is wrong with Buddhism, or with Islam. Then neither of them is a perfect philosophical system.
There are two steps in that short premise: An axiom and believe it.
You must have something first, so you can reason if you want to believe it.
So, the first thing set in Christian philosophy is: let there be God. If later on we feel this axiom is not needed, then we can consider to delete it.
If you say it exists, then I accept it for the moment. Then I want to see the definition/argument. Zisensontar is just a symbol (a name space). It could be anything.
Twice "no".
1. I have no problem whatsoever to deal with a hypothetical, or to assume that a statement is correct for the sake of the argument. Au contraire, I think this is a valid and productive way of investigating the accuracy of a statement. E.g. it´s the first step of a "reductio ad absurdum". I use this approach all the time, and if you look back you will find that I have done that several times in this thread.
2. This is not the point or problem we have been discussing, anyway. The question we have been discussing was: What makes an axiom, and my position is: An empty word doesn´t make an axiom. An idea/concept (whether it is labeled or not) does.
What indeed I find myself unable to do is:
Agreeing or disagreeing (or being anything but indifferent towards) a verbal construction in which the keyword is undefined.
Such a verbal construction isn´t a (substantiated or unsubstantiated) statement, it isn´t accurate or inaccurate, it isn´t a theory, it isn´t a hypothesis, it isn´t an axiom, it isn´t even nonsense. It´s nothing but an empty verbal shell. I am unable to have an opinion about the accuracy of its content - because it doesn´t contain anything.
Well, unfortunately I don´t know what Zisensontar is supposed to be, either, and I have no argument.
I just brought it up because your position was that a verbal construction is an axiom already at a point when there isn´t even a definition to its keyword.
Furthermore, you said that from such an "axiom" everything else followed logically and necessarily. Now, you were the one who agreed with the "axiom" I quoted, so it´s up to you to show what follows logically and necessarily from this verbal construction.
BINGO.
Exactly my point.
Even worse, it could not even be anything but a an empty word (i.e. not even a symbol).
Nothing follows logically and necessarily from the verbal construction "Zisensontar exists" because at this point "Zisensontar" has no idea/concept attached to it. It isn´t a statement, it isn´t an axiom.
Likewise, the verbal construction "God exists" (as long as "God" is an empty word without a concept/idea attached to it) isn´t an axiom and not even a statement. Nothing follows from it logically or necessarily.
An axiom is a concept, not a word. A word without meaning attached to it doesn´t allow for an axiom.
What I am trying to show you is that you have it backwards. Nobody needs a word like "Zisensontar" or "God", unless they want to communicate a concept/idea. The idea/concept is first.
Examples:
a. someone has the axiomatic idea that the universe must be created, hence there must be a creator entity, which he will call "God".
b. someone feels that morality is unsatisfactory when it is subject to subjective opinion. Hence he axiomatically creates the concept of a supernatural moral authority, which he may call "God".
c. someone feels that there should be an "objective" meaning/purpose to existence. Hence he will axiomatically assume a supernatural authoritative purpose-giver.
None of these properties (creator entity, moral authority, authority on the purpose of existence) follows naturally, necessarily or logically (or at all) from forming a word (be it "Zisensontar" or "God").
The assumed properties are the axiomatic assumptions.
I got it. Thanks for spending so much time to explain. I guess you are right on this so-calle axiom argument.
So "God exists" is not an axiom unless God is roughly defined first. I agree. In fact, as I review what I said, I did use expression:
God = functions (parameter1, parameter2, ...)
Except I thought those parameters could be added at later time. Indeed, God is a name space and is empty until those parameters and functions are filled. I might make an inaccurate argument. But I do have the right idea.
I will tentatively assign two characters to God at the beginning: 1. supernatural; 2. authoritative. Then I say, such a being called God, which exist. (in fact, if you read the story that Jacob wrestled with a stranger in Genesis, that is exactly what God was to Jacob until he knew Him better at later time)
Would that be a good axiom? If such an axiom is introduced into a philosophy, then it becomes theology. Well, may be this would render Buddhism not to be a theology, just a philosophy.
If I remember correctly they e.g. have "Universalists" or "Unitiarian" in their name.
Just for a personal feedback:
I have become a little hesitant to take your claim that something is "important to you" overly seriously. Last time (when you said it was important to you to know what purposes I personally give to my life, made that question very urgent and got a little pushy about it) you later simply ignored my answer and moved on.
Personally, I would also claim that I can pick out the problems of the main doctrines presented by Christians - in my experience, though, Christians don´t perceive them as problems. I guess it´s the same vice versa.
Well, in the development of this thread it has become clear that you have no answers to all possible questions, but instead reserve the right to shoot them down or evade answering them in a straightforward manner when they are conflicting with the paradigms and axioms underlying your beliefs.
Depends on what exactly you wish to hear an argument against.
E.g. I would agree with Mark´s objection that Christianity isn´t a philosophical system, in the first place.
Well, this would be a pretty easy requirement to meet.
There are billions who find something wrong with Christianity, and according to your criteria this fact renders it a not perfect philosophical system. Case closed.
The issue with Buddhism is that there is such a thing as atheology in academic discourse, from what I understand. With Buddhism as an atheology, it would mean it talks about deities and gods as if they are unimportant, and even in some cases, nonexistent because of the particular nature of Buddhism. Though most traditional Buddhists would not outright deny the existence of deities, but only their importance/relevance to attaining enlightenment, nirvana, etc.
Except that's not a premise in full, it's the first half of an if/then premise, if I understand logic at all. Then again, an if/then statement can serve as an argument in itself, albeit a flawed one, since it just has the inference of if A, then B, which of course would only be justified if we also demonstrated that A is actually true. Believing an axiom is so demonstrable that it borders on absurdity to say the opposite.
Of course we believe in axioms, it's answering the question of why those axioms are useful that is difficult. The axiom, "God exists" is not unique to Christianity, as opposed to the axiom, "God is three in one", which is something that follows from an axiom fundamental to any theistic religion/system/philosophy in general. So it's not just that the Christian axioms are disputed, but the axioms common to all theistic philosophies that are unfalsifiable. Why would christianity ever feel the need to remove the axiom "God exists"? Especially if later axioms of that belief are contingent on the holding of the first axiom just mentioned.
Just because it doesn't have an answer that people find conclusive doesn't mean it doesn't have an implicit answer in the sense of, "The answer is that there is no answer" or "The answer is that the question is unimportant". Just because it's not a discursive conclusive answer doesn't mean there isn't an answer in some practical pragmatic sense
What Buddhism confused me at the first place is that it seems the "orthodox" Buddhism does not say anything about god. However, it does imply god. And some other branches obviously say there are gods at where when one escaped the cycle of reincarnation. Theology or Atheology, it is very confusing. When I ask question about what the situation would be after physical death (the myth of reincarnation)? The answer I got is: "we do not talk about it", "It is not important."
It does not make sense. Either there is no life after life, or it is a very very important matter. Buddhism says: the life after this life is "not important". If it is not important, then why shouldn't I kill and eat a chicken? If a chicken is somebody's reincarnated life, then it is VERY important. If I reincarnated into a chicken and then got killed, where would I ended up? I have to worry about this because there are too many chicken around today.
In contrast, Christianity has a very satisfactory answer to this problem. A chicken is a chicken. If it got killed, then the life just vanished and the material is recycled. A human is never a chicken at any time
Then we have to reason if it is important or not important. This discussion is also avoid.
It we do not need to talk about something, then I want to know why is there no need to talk about it. What can you say?
Trinity is not an axiom. It is a logic necessity (or consequence) based on what God intends to do (or has done). It is derived from our understanding to Christian doctrine. We do not know how does it work, but it has to be that way. It is a consequence, not a presumption.
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?