Theli

You still haven't answered my question.
If you have reached the conclution that "god" cannot be conceptualized, then you must have some idea of what the word means.
You must agree that it is highly unusual for a word to not have a concept, yet imply things about what it describes. Impossible even for anyone with knowledge of how language works.

yguy

God is the Creator, the uncaused first cause, the source of all good.

Happy now? Didn't think so.

Family Man

That isn't what I meant. I meant that your statement God cannot be conceptualized is meaningless. But I don't disagree with you either.


That isn't what I meant either. By claiming that God can not be conceptualized, you are trying to arrange it so that it can not be discussed, much less refuted.

But to answer your question, if I can not refute a concept, I can feel confident that I can rely on the concept. When someone tries to make a concept unfalsifiable, as you tried to do, I can't feel the concept has any validity at all, which puts it in the 99% meaningless category.

As a concept, it's fine. The real question is whether you can give any good reason to believe such a being really exists without resorting to meaningless phrases such as, "God can't be conceptualized."

yguy

That's not how I'm trying to arrange it, that's how it is.

Then you're talking to the wrong person.

I'm not here to give anybody a good reason to believe in God. I'm here to expose the flaws in the reasoning that says He doesn't exist.

Family Man

No, that is how it obviously isn't. In order to discuss something, it has to be conceptualized. I think most ministers would be shocked to discover that they can't tell their parishioners about God because they can't conceptualize it. If that was true, they'd have very little to say. Your statement is nothing more than a cheap, rhetorical trick.


Um, you asked me why I felt the need to refute the concept of God. That was my answer. Obviously, I am talking to the right guy. Frankly, your response makes no sense to me.


And doing a bad job of it if your obviously wrong "God cannot be conceptualized" is the best that you can do.

yguy

From what I've heard, they DO have very little to say.

OK, be that way.

What you want, I haven't got. Hope that clears things up.

Family Man

Nor, apparently, do you. But, in my experience, theists in general and ministers in particular talk voluminously about God. We're constantly regaled about how God wants this or God wants that. Odd, since your theory would preclude any discussion at all. No, it seems that people can conceptualize God just fine.


I will. Thanks. You certainly haven't given me any reason to believe I'm wrong.



No, actually, I have no clue what you're trying to say, especially since I don't recall asking you for anything. On the contrary, you were the one who asked me the question, remember?

Nowhere357

My "assertion" was a logical conclusion based on your premise. You claimed I was wrong - gainsaying - and I rebutted by restating and supporting my conclusion. You ignored my rebuttal, thus it stands unrefuted.

Now here you misstate my point, while pretending that your point is still valid. That you do this as you deny the implication of "jerk" is both ironic and telling.

Theli

And now you have conceptualized god. Something you yourself said was wrong. Remember?
And ofcourse, good is in the eye of the beholder so there can't be a "source of all good".

yguy

Of course, but that conclusion was improperly drawn. I've said nothing from which it could be logically inferred.

What the devil are you talking about? Your last response to me provided me with a definition of Tao. How in hell does that constitute a refutation of anything I've said?