tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post7339114412913880968..comments2023-06-04T03:08:10.609-04:00Comments on Salty Current: It's 2011, and evidence for "god" is still not possible.SChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-78470112399754616662011-02-02T04:57:11.813-05:002011-02-02T04:57:11.813-05:00I was going to disagree, but on consideration I re...I was going to disagree, but on consideration I realise that omniscient isn't well-defined (does this god know the position and momentum and spin of every quantum particle? Then quantum entanglement wouldn't exist).<br /><br />Omnipotent is notoriously ill-defined (capable of everything, or of all logically possible thing, or of all physically possible things?).<br /><br />Omnibenevolent isn't really defined either (wishes everybody well? Everybody equally? wishes for maximal wellbeing on average? For humans? For humans and animals?)<br /><br />So yeah, the omnimax entity isn't defined and may even be a self-contradiction. Which also puts another nail in the coffin of the ontological argument, of course.S_A_Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05191392284120124936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-68862086526478812632011-01-03T19:10:52.916-05:002011-01-03T19:10:52.916-05:00I think, (as I've said before), that your emph...<i>I think, (as I've said before), that your emphasis on definition is simply wrong. Whatever definition is given, one can simply, as you did with Kel's, require that they define the terms used in that definition.</i> <br /><br />Of course.<br /><br /><i>Moreover, this applies to the definition of absolutely anything, including dogs, atoms, social classes, evolution...</i> <br /><br />Right. And the terms used can be defined in those cases.<br /><br /><i>Natural language just doesn't work like that. Definitions can be useful, but they can never get you to "physical entities and processes".</i><br /><br />Of course they can. Dogs and atoms and gravity are physical. Disagreements can and do of course exist concerning precise definitions and the specific nature of evidence for arguments concerning these entities and processes, but they remain physical. (Class is an abstraction from human conditions and relationships, but humans are physical. The equivalent in the case under consideration would be "defining" a deity as proletarian.)<br /><br /><i>"“[A]n omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent X” assumes an X, which hasn’t been defined."<br /><br />No, it doesn't. "There exists an X, such that X is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent" is a meaningful proposition, which is either true or false.</i> <br /><br />It isn't a meaningful proposition in terms of possibly adducing evidence for X. The adjectives themselves don't make sense without referents.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-7272692957186754582011-01-02T18:09:27.075-05:002011-01-02T18:09:27.075-05:00SC,
I think, (as I've said before), that your...SC,<br /><br />I think, (as I've said before), that your emphasis on definition is simply wrong. Whatever definition is given, one can simply, as you did with Kel's, require that they define the terms used in that definition. Moreover, this applies to the definition of <i>absolutely anything</i>, including dogs, atoms, social classes, evolution... Natural language just doesn't work like that. Definitions can be useful, but they can never get you to "physical entities and processes".<br /><br />"“[A]n omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent X” assumes an X, which hasn’t been defined."<br /><br />No, it doesn't. "There exists an X, such that X is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent" is a meaningful proposition, which is either true or false.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-9494819834252602882011-01-02T03:29:46.234-05:002011-01-02T03:29:46.234-05:00Agent - a person or thing that acts or has the pow...<i>Agent - a person or thing that acts or has the power to act Intelligent - having good understanding or a high mental capacity The conception of God is just that.</i><br /> <br />What do you mean by “person” or “thing” (a literal person or thing? If so, who/what?)? “Act”? "Understanding"? “Intelligent”? “Mental”? Do these latter concepts have any meaning outside physical entities?<br /><br /><i>You can't call a pencil case God and proclaim that God exists because the pencil case does.</i> <br /><br />?<br /><br /><i>That doesn't fit the conception of God.</i><br /> <br />What conception? Whose conception? What specifically/precisely/exactly is this conception?<br /><br /><i>So from that,</i> <br /><br />From <i>what</i>?<br /><br /><i>we know that God means something.</i><br /><br />What? (Seriously. Not a pencil case...therefore, <i>what</i>?)<br /><br /><i>It's not to say it's a well-formed concept, but it's a recognisable one.</i> <br /><br />No. It's nothing.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-77973107684650767962011-01-02T00:58:44.564-05:002011-01-02T00:58:44.564-05:00Agent - a person or thing that acts or has the pow...Agent - a person or thing that acts or has the power to act<br />Intelligent - having good understanding or a high mental capacity<br /><br />The conception of God is just that. You can't call a pencil case God and proclaim that God exists because the pencil case does. That doesn't fit the conception of God. So from that, we know that God means something. It's not to say it's a well-formed concept, but it's a recognisable one. Much like the word "dragon", it's a concept that we can understand (again we can't call anything a dragon) yet it's something that might be conceptually-impossible. Even so, when I mention the word "dragon" you surely know what I'm talking about.<br /><br />I think the dragon example might illustrate what I'm trying to say. Fires would be evidence for dragons, and the lack of fires would be evidence against dragons. But fires can never prove that dragons exist because there's not a sufficient concept of a dragon to attribute fires to.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-10404217030037254782011-01-02T00:13:14.652-05:002011-01-02T00:13:14.652-05:00It means, we could conceive of evidence that we wo...<i>It means, we could conceive of evidence that we would attribute to intelligent agent(s) working in this world.</i><br /><br />Please define what you mean, and begin with "agent(s)."<br /><br /><i>But God as a conception means something.</i> <br /><br />What, precisely?<br /><br /><i>But there's a concept. The term God means something.</i> <br /><br />What's the concept? What does it mean? (Can you define it in terms of the questions I asked in my previous post?)SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-86773004033558936152011-01-01T23:41:47.071-05:002011-01-01T23:41:47.071-05:00"But what does this mean?"
It means, we ...<i>"But what does this mean?"</i><br />It means, we could conceive of evidence that we would attribute to intelligent agent(s) working in this world.<br /><br /><i>"If “god” isn’t defined, “something godlike” isn’t either; nor is “intervening.”"</i><br />But God as a conception means something. <br /><br /><i>"There’s no sense in talking about the presence or lack of evidence for an unconcept."</i><br />But there's a concept. The term God means <i>something</i>.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-16055320923611948962011-01-01T22:08:11.079-05:002011-01-01T22:08:11.079-05:00The conceptual impossibility of God
This is wher...<i>The conceptual impossibility of God</i> <br /><br />This is where language, I think, does us no favors. (Or perhaps the problem is that the term, imagined before science, has attained currency over the millennia without those using it being required to define it.) People can use this as though it’s a word with meaning, but it isn’t. "X exists" is the same claim. X or _ can be substituted with no loss of meaning. <br /><br /><i>and the call for evidence are surely two different questions.</i> <br /><br />They are in the sense that a call for evidence only makes sense in reference to defined concepts or entities. Evidence, and the discussion of what constitutes it, comes after.<br /><br /><i>That is to say, the concept of God can be ill-conceived</i> <br /><br />It has to be <i>conceived</i>. Otherwise it’s nothing.<br /><br /><i>yet there still should be evidence of something.</i><br /> <br />But what does this mean? X isn’t anything.<br /><br /><i>If there were something godlike intervening in the world, we should know about it through evidential means.</i><br /> <br />If “god” isn’t defined, “something godlike” isn’t either; nor is “intervening.”<br /><br /><i>That we can't call it God (because those traits applied to God could never be satisfied)</i> <br /><br />What “it”? What traits? What do you mean by “God”?<br /><br /><i>doesn't take away that the lack of evidence is good grounds for rejecting it.</i><br /><br />There’s no sense in talking about the presence or lack of evidence for an unconcept.<br />It’s not that there’s no evidence for the claim. It’s that there’s no effective claim. There’s nothing to consider. It's _.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-26089078978935503022011-01-01T21:12:24.424-05:002011-01-01T21:12:24.424-05:00The conceptual impossibility of God and the call f...The conceptual impossibility of God and the call for evidence are surely two different questions. That is to say, the concept of God can be ill-conceived yet there still should be evidence of <i>something</i>. If there were something godlike intervening in the world we should know about it through evidential means. That we can't call it God (because those traits applied to God could never be satisfied) doesn't take away that the lack of evidence is good grounds for rejecting it.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com