E_muse

What do you mean, can't add anything meaningful? Our whole discussion rests upon language and definitions that we have agreed depend upon experience.

My question is, what contribution can you make to the debate if our debate merely revolves around words?

You can only assign a definition to the term 'God' as 'that which I have never experienced' whereas the term 'God' relates in some way to human experience.

All it would boil down to is an attempt to justify our own experiences and imposing our own experiences upon certain defintions. Monopolizing a definition if you like.

Of course, one cannot impose a definition based upon a lack of experience onto a label that might relate to an 'experience'.

I think we've agreed that definitons only become meaningful when the experience has been mutually shared.

I haven't said non-logical but I would say logically transcendent. Any attempt to understand and define God will unltimtely break down.

This isn't just true of theism. I would say that the natural world is currently logically transcendent. One of the pursuits of science is to come up with a theory of everything.

This is why experience must arbitrate.

Unless we begin to argue from some shared experiences to which you can add new definitons from the basis of your own experience, then I think that this is all the debate will become.

I wouldn't entirely agree, especially if 'the words we slap to together' are related to some meaningful experience.

My question to you is, can we argue from a basis of shared experience. Have you had experiences that you once thought were God but have now redefined?

I would find it impossible to relate Leprechauns or square circles to any meaningful experience.

They are - as far as I can see - beyond man's ability to experience them. The same cannot be said for God.

I refuse to accept that 'reality' is subject to human logic. The fact that we do not fully understand the world and conflicting theories exist is evidence of this.

I'm not sure whether this thread is 'decided', although it probably is in your mind. I shall read it more fully when I have time.

If we can only conceive of things that are logically possible, does this indicate that our reasoning abilities are limited?

BTW, I haven't said that God is non-logical - you seem to have inserted that term. But God, like any other concept, has to be broken down into a series of partial and inadequate explanations.

I wrote this in a hurry so I hope it makes sense.

Philosoft

E_muse writes:
<strong> That’s fine. I was only referring to the part about the source of word meanings.

<strong> Obviously very little, if you’re going to continue to use words like ‘God’ and then not explain what you mean by them.

<strong> Actually, if God is a thing, I should be able to define God as “that particular thing.” If God is only an experience, then God is no more than electro-chemical signals. If we can experience something called God, then there must be a thing to experience.

<strong> However, I can say that if you have only an experience of an alleged thing, without providing a thing experienced, it is meaningless to suggest that I can also have this experience.

<strong> Unless I have missed something, things can either logically exist or they cannot logically exist. Please explain what you mean by “logically transcendent.”

<strong> Again, this is only because you have defined the concept ‘God’ in advance as “something that will ultimately breakdown with any attempt to understand.” If I define an allegedly “logically transcendent” ‘piflitz’ as “something that E_muse can’t taste,” I have said nothing meaningful.

<strong> Good grief, have you had any formal education in logic at all? First, logic isn’t a way to explain (existentially) why something exists. Logic is simply a way to explain relationships between existing things, concepts and laws. Second, the TofE won’t provide any existential reason why the universe is logical in the first place.

<strong> Especially if you keep telling me I have to experience a non-physical, non-logical thing.

<strong> Follow me here. As soon as you assume your “meaningful experiences” are caused by a non-physical, non-logical thing, you no longer have any basis to rationally judge anyone else’s claims of “meaningful experiences” of non-logical, non-physical things.

<strong> I have no memory of previously judging such experiences. In any case, I don’t know how anyone can rationally attribute experiences to non-logical, non-physical things.

<strong> It doesn’t matter. As long as anyone claims to have a meaningful experience with these, or any other non-physical, non-logical things, you must accept their testimony as genuine.

<strong> Honestly, now who’s monopolizing definitions?

<strong> Conflicting theories have nothing to do with subjecting reality to human logic. Scientific theories are empirical in nature. Many theories can be logically possible but you will not find too many that are ‘logically true.’ You are egregiously mixing your disciplines here.

<strong> If, by this snide remark, you mean that I am confident I’m right, then you are correct. If you mean I’m certain I can’t be proven wrong, then you’re incorrect.

<strong> No, it indicates that things have properties and some of these properties are fundamentally mutually exclusive.

<strong> First, as I asked above, please differentiate between “logically transcendent” and “non-logical.” Second, I’d be interested to hear some of the “partial and inadequate explanations” that make up the God-concept.

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

E_muse

God is defined in many ways by different people. To some he is referred to as the first cause of everything, the sustainer of everything and so on.

In the context of this discussion (because each definition opens up so many potential debates) I shall refer to God as a being experienced by theists at the subjective level, but whose interaction with them seems to cause changes at the objective level (answered prayer). Hope that will do for now.

I certainly agree with your last point here. If there is a God then we should be able to experience him at some level.

This suggests that, if someone experiences something, it must also be within their power to bring others into an experience of that thing.

Firstly, if God is real, I would suggest that only he has the power to make himself real to people. It is down to each individual to discover God for themselves (if they want to).

I'll try! God is beyond logic. He cannot be contained by logic. Logical statements can be made about him.. but he is beyond all of them.

In order to explain God, or understand him fully, we would have to be his intellectual equal. I'm saying that this can't be.

As for your last statement.. agreed. But if you had claimed to have experienced this 'logically transcendent' 'piflitz' I would start listening.

Meaning that there are different levels of questioning.. and no, I haven't.

I think that one would have to hear what these 'meaningful experiences' were. I don't think that some claim to an inner calm or peace would be enough.

I don't think that people do 'rationally'. I think that it is based on experience and intuative.

I would want to know the experience being claimed and whether it was verified.

I'm not attempting to do anything of the sort. With reference to the Leprachauns etc, most people would have no problem in writing these off as ficticious.

The same cannot be said for God.. and that simply seems to be the state of affairs.

Quite possibly.

Not intended as a snide remark. It is just that when I scanned over the thread, it did not appear as conclusive as you suggested.