Hans

I have asked the member of <a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a> named noncognitivism to continue <a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/fgwnnfrm11.showMessage?topicID=380.topic" target="_blank">his discussion</a> here. He has asked for a definition for the word god.

=======

The word god is used to refer to: An entity with unknown properties that is believed to account for events or conditions for which we have no other explanation.

The word 'god' is somewhat synonymous with the word 'perpetrator'. Where a perpetrator can refer to an unknown person believed to account for particular events or conditions, god refers to an unknown entity that is believed to account for particular events or conditions. So the sentence "the nature of the god is diligently sought after" should be no more or less coherent than the sentence "the identity of the perpetrator is diligently sought after."

So, does the sentence "God exists" express a proposition?

I'll take the definition of proposition in this context as: A statement that affirms or denies something.

And ask myself, does the sentence "perpetrator exists" express a proposition?

And my answer would be yes to both questions. However, if we do not change the syntax the statements only say "the word (god/perpetrator) exists." Change the syntax to "The (god/perpetrator) exists" and they then refer to their respective subjects and both still express a proposition.

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]</p>

excreationist

Hans -
The problem is that the word "god" is used in many different ways.

e.g. It can refer to a supreme being who has total control over the universe ("God") or it can refer to a lesser being ("a god") that has limited powers.

So let's say "God" refers to a person who has total control over the physical universe. (We could ignore whether he is nice or not)

Though God is said to be the creator of the universe, this is not necessary for that definition I just gave. God could just exist eternally along with the universe - or God could have been born once and acquired total control over the universe. (kind of like Neo and the Matrix - if Neo chose to recreate the Matrix)

People usually would think that gods are immortal... or at least they can't be harmed by humans.

So the definition would be:

God - a personality who has total control over our universe and can't be harmed by it.

Anyway, we have different opinions on what "God" is, just like we might disagree what things are good or evil or beautiful. I don't think that there is a definition that sums up God for all people.

...So, does the sentence "God exists" express a proposition?
Yes, persons like God can exist - or not exist.

Now it depends on what your definition of God is though...

your definition:
An entity with unknown properties that is believed to account for events or conditions for which we have no other explanation....The word 'god' is somewhat synonymous with the word 'perpetrator'.
Demons and ghosts could fit your definition. Your definition needs to be more precise - "God exists" implies there is one person called God. Your definition doesn't single out God from other possible entities like spirits and angels.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

HelenM

The person who is arguing on that thread in CA is simply playing word games as far as I can tell.

I doubt that any of us exists in a way that would satisfy his criteria for what a valid definition is.

Either that or he has some arbitrary rules such as 'someone that is visible is definable and someone that isn't, isn't'. In which case he defined God as indefinable a priori but in a subjective way that has no objective validity.

It seems rather pointless to me since existence or not is not established by word games but by evidence. Imo

love
Helen

Philosoft

The word 'perpetrator' has, at the very least, been imbued with the context 'material thing.' That is, if we are talking about a crime that happened in the material world, it necessarily has been done by a perpetrator who materially exists. If the crime is part of a work of fiction, a detective novel perhaps, then the crime is an abstract event that requires an abstract perpetrator. These are the only cases that apply, and in no case can the abstract perpetrator act in the material world or vice-versa.

It follows, then, that 'God,' if it symbolizes a thinkable concept, is either an abstract thing or a material thing. From above, in order to affect the material world, God must be a material thing. This requires that God have an inherent form. I've yet to see a definition of God that accounts for this.

Hans

Thanks to everyone who has responded.

I've been trying to 'boil down' this noncognitivist stuff so I can make some sense of it. It seems that it is when we try to define any supernatural entity that we run into trouble.

Supernatural: Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

Entity: Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit.

Either word works fine by itself. But when you combine the two and say 'supernatural entity' or 'god', or 'spirit' it lacks any meaningful definition. Anything we try to use to define them ends up being materialistic or naturalistic properties as there are no known supernatural properties. We simply don't know what a supernatural property is.

Does the above accurately portray the reason for our inability to apply a definition to the word God?

(I'm going to put this question at the other board as well.)

Mendeh

I'm not very far up on philosophy, especially metaphysics, but I would say 'nope' to the above post. I think people haven't been able to come up with a good definition of a god because so far, nobody has been able to find one and have a look at it.

How in god's name can you expect to come up with a decent definition of something that you can't actually get a hold of and have a look at?

I could come up with any number of definitions of a plant pot, but until I've actually seen a plant pot, I've got no way of knowing whether my definitions are right. Until I've seen a plant pot, all I can do is arbitrarily pluck definitions out of thin air. Doesn't the same follow with trying to define a god?

As I said, I'm pretty ignorant on all this philosophical stuff, so I'm probably completely wrong on this, so please shoot me down if I'm barking up the wrong trousers... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

excreationist

Hans:
Even when you define "supernatural" and "entity", your definition of God could still apply to spirits, demons, etc, so it isn't an accurate definition.

Philosoft

I think Mendeh has it. All we have related to God is a bunch of attributes. Obviously, our definition of 'entity' entails that any attributes necessarily come after existence has been established. God can be either a material thing, with observable attributes or an abstract thing with imaginary attributes, like a unicorn. These are the only categories of 'thing' we have to work with and both require a mental image of said thing in order to begin applying attributes.

Hans

I agree. I also agree with your first post. I still haven't been able to come up with a way to define a god. It's rather funny, to me, that I can't.

Hans

Which seems to be the very thing we lack.

But I'm still trying to decide if the hole noncognitivist exercise is of any real valu. I am lead to this uncertainty by wondering what would happen if one asserts to the noncognitivist that "God", with a capitol G, is a material being with a long white beard who has unlimited supernatural powers. God could seemingly make himself invisable, defy gravity, etc. Whatever is necessary for him to remain undetected. Just seems a matter of imagination.

In doing so it would seem to force a noncognivitist to agree that the statement "God exists" does, in fact, express a proposition.

I have to ask myself what is preventing someone from making such an assertion? What would a noncognivitist use to argue that such an assertion is not an accurate definition of the word God?