Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 04-13-2003, 12:51 PM

Quote:

If we can derive a contradiction from the qualities allegedly possessed by some proposed object, in conjunction with the state of the world, then we can say that object does not exist. That is, I take it, the use of the word 'incoherent' in this context. Asking us to defend this is like asking if anyone is willing to defend modus tollens.

But that is not what Nielson is doing. He is basically admitting that we cannot derive any contradictions in the existence of God. He is stating that we cannot even legitimately use the word "God" in a premise of a logical argument for or against the existence of God, because we do not have an idea what this word means.

He does not mean, by incoherent, contradictory. He seems to mean, simply, inconceivable.

Quote:

One can derive a contradiction from the typical omnigod such as posited by Judaism/Christianity/Islam, conjoined with the existence of evil (unnecessary suffering), and therefore conclude that a god with such qualities does not exist.

If you could prove the suffering was unnecessary, but anyway that is for another thread.

Quote:

If you try to twist the meaning of the word 'incoherent' around to say there are things we just don't understand, or things about which we may be mistaken, then I don't think you are using it in the original context.

No, I am using it in the original context in which Nielson used it. But I agree with you if you are saying that this version of incoherence, or this means of establishing incoherence, is invalid.

Wyrdsmyth · 04-14-2003, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
But that is not what Nielson is doing. He is basically admitting that we cannot derive any contradictions in the existence of God. He is stating that we cannot even legitimately use the word "God" in a premise of a logical argument for or against the existence of God, because we do not have an idea what this word means. He does not mean, by incoherent, contradictory. He seems to mean, simply, inconceivable.

My mistake. I was thinking of an entirely different argument, and I got the two confused. I disagree with Kai's argument. Kai's argument could be applied to any number of terms. Take 'reality,' for example: "Reality as a concept is incoherent because different people have different conceptions of reality." This is an incorrect line of reasoning, because when we are evaluating a concept's coherence, we are looking at whether it is internally consistent -- not whether it is consistent with other concepts that happen to share names or terminology with it.

Quote:

If you could prove the suffering was unnecessary, but anyway that is for another thread.

Yes, this is another tangent. But I believe I would only have to get you to accept the premise "at least some suffering is unnecessary" not that "(all) suffering is unnecessary."

Quote:

No, I am using it in the original context in which Nielson used it. But I agree with you if you are saying that this version of incoherence, or this means of establishing incoherence, is invalid.

Yes, on that we agree.

luvluv · 04-15-2003, 06:11 AM

Wyrdsmyth:

Quote:

Yes, on that we agree.

Good Lord!

I believe this is a first.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.