Philosoft

I disagree. Words are simply the meaning we ascribe to them. We English speakers could very easily create a word which we define as "the taste of chocolate" but we don't because it wouldn't add any information. It would be like saying, "This tastes like piflitz" in place of "This tastes like chocolate." Further, the taste of chocolate can be descriptively subdivided. We are capable of noticing and communicating about chocolates that differ in sweetness, bitterness, etc.

<strong> Who said describing the taste of chocolate was simple?

<strong> I presume you refer to the legal "field"? Are you suggesting the existence of God should be decided by judge or jury?

<strong> Well, you can consider non-logical things real all you like but you should realize that the floodgates are now open and you're in the path of the nonsense river.

<strong> This question might have more relevance if it can be shown that there's a way to distinguish "I know this through valid non-sensory means" from "I really really want this to be true."

E_muse

Firstly, I have been happy to refer to God as a concept as well as a potentially existent being.

Man's concept of God means that God (if he exists) defies explanation or our attempts to rationalize him. I have not said that he is therefore unknowable.

Will catch up on the rest later!

Philosoft

Then perhaps you can tell me what it is I'm supposed to have a concept of?

<strong> This is all very confusing. Let me see if I can make some sense...

I can have a concept which I cannot explain or rationalize but of which I can have knowledge. Maybe you can break this down because I don't have the first clue how this is supposed to work.

E_muse

It doesn't add any new information because it would simply be replacing one word for another which expresses the same meaning. In other words, taste cannot be expressed any more deeply than it is already, otherwise more words would exist.

I didn't. In fact, I've already suggested that it isn't easy to explain. It is simple to experience though.. and that it my point.

How would the existence of God be defended? Would it simply rest on logical arguement?

In what way?

There are different permutations to these two statments.

I think that beforehand we need to define what is a valid non-sensory means.

E_muse

It is simply fact that, if God only exists in the human mind, man has conceived something that defies the best abilities of his logic or his ability to explain it.

Autonemesis

If I may butt in here... Something E_muse has been saying caught my attention.

I think it's fair to restate your position as follows:

1. God defies explanation by the human mind.
2. The human mind cannot conceive a concept that defies explanation by the human mind.
3. The only explanation for the fact that the human mind possesses a conception of god, is that god must actually exist.

Or more simply, your contention is that the human mind is incapable of imagining nonsense. I suppose now you will argue about the meaning of the words "defy" and "explanation". But I could be wrong on that point.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Philosoft

In response to my assertion that “tastes like chocolate” is adequately descriptive, E_muse wrote:
Relevance? Your argument was that the taste of chocolate cannot be described by language. I assert that “tastes like chocolate” is adequately descriptive because I know what you mean when you say something “tastes like chocolate.” What you wrote above is not even related to that argument.

In response to my query about the simplicity of describing the taste of chocolate, E_muse wrote:
Please demonstrate why “tastes like chocolate” is not adequate to convey information about how something tastes.

I suggested that the legal field might be an area where strictly scientific standards do not apply and E_muse responded:
Honestly, I’m not the one who has to worry about that problem. Although I don’t think a being defined as non-logical can be said to logically exist.

I wrote:
E_muse responded:
Um, I’ve got news for you: you are not the authority on what non-logical things should be considered ‘real.’ As soon as you allow a non-reliable method of determining what things are ‘real,’ you no longer have a rational reason to deny the claims of leprechaunists, Santa Clausists and Last-Thursdayists.

I said:
E_muse replied:
I never said those statements represented a dichotomy. My point was that if there is no way to determine the truth-value of the first statement, other than testimony, it is fundamentally indistinguishable from the second statement. As for a “valid non-sensory means,” well, I’m open to suggestions but don’t hold your breath.

E_muse

Adequately descriptive to whom? What you're actually saying here is that 'It tastes likes chocolate' is adequately descriptive to you and nothng more. But when you describe the term as adequately descriptive, what other underlying assumptions inform this statement? Allow me to elaborate.

'It tastes like chocolate' is not adequate if it is said to someone who doesn't speak a word of English or who has never experienced chocolate, or who is deaf or who has no sense of taste. You seem to suggest that because something has meaning for you then it must have meaning for everyone.

You only know what I mean because you speak English and have tasted chocolate (presumably) and have a sense of taste and can read and so on and so on. The phrase on its own carries no meaning. It only makes sense when someone can relate it to an experience as well as many others skills that we take for granted and don't even notice.

You said that you know what I mean, but do you know what 'I' mean? Can you logically prove that my subjective experience of chocolate (my brain's interpretation of it), is identicle to yours? Even if we can relate the label 'chocolate' to a subjective experience, I cannot know whether my subjective experience is the same as yours, even if we attach the same label to it.

Here I'm trying to investigate the role that experience plays in our ability to interpret language. Obviously whether we can taste, whether we have tried certain things and so on will determine our experiences that will, in turn, determine the level of meaning that we are able to attach to certain phrases.

I only state this to demonstrate the limitations of language in conveying meaning and that we finally define things according to our own experience of them.

I think that I already have above.

The information about how something tastes is contained within the brain of the person who has had the experience - not in the label they choose to attach to that information.

A little demonstration:

You said earlier:

The fact that I may not understand foreign languages is that words on their own carry no meaning in and of themselves. We must be able to relate them to some experience.

If I told you that I tasted something today and that it tastes like something else to which I have attached the label 'piflitz', what would that tell you about what I have tasted?

Word meanings depend upon something else - experience. That's all I'm trying to get across.

What do you mean by 'logically exist'?

Can the existence of something finally be determined by the laws we choose to attach to the way we use language?

I haven't claimed to be an authority on anything! Your statement is irrelevant to anything that I've said. I haven't even claimed that God is real - only in a potential sense.

I do have a rational basis for rejecting many of things you cite. I don't find it quite so easy when it comes to God.

Incidentally, 'real' is only that which is experienced to be 'real' by the human brain.

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

That's what I've suggested yes. This seems the case - regardless of whether He is objectively real or simply a subjective human construct.

No, I haven't said that. In fact the last quote in the list you've given states:

I did say that the concept of God seems something more than the product of human imagination.

All through my posts I have used the phrase 'If he exists', deliberately leaving the question open.

These are not my words. I would much rather you ask me what I think.. I am more than happy to try and explain.. as I am doing. Please don't tell me what I think.

The 'Green Pig' arguement (which has been used) demonstrates that the human mind is capable of producing nonsense and would be considered such by most.

However, the concept of God is not nonsense to many, even those who seem to be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality in other areas of their life.

Philosoft

E_muse,

Rather than respond to the bulk of your post piece by piece, I'm going to stipulate that word meanings depend on experiece. I think that part of the discussion has become an aside and won't really add anything meaningful.

Onward...

I wrote:
You replied:
<strong> I mean 'logically exist.' This was in response to your query about defending God's existence within a legal framework: "Would it simply rest on logical argument." Obviously not, since you had previously used the modifier (or something to the effect of) 'non-logical' to describe God.

<strong> I can make neither heads nor tails of this. I do not know what are "laws we choose to attach to the way we use language."

I said:
You replied:
<strong> This is what started it:
<strong> Irrelevant, whatever. Your assertion that we have reason to consider 'non-logical things' potentially real means that we are free to just slap some words together and deem it 'potentially real, yet unable to be contained within logic.' This means, whether you like it or not, not only are Leprechaunists and Last Thursdayists fully justified in their beliefs but square circles are now potentially real.

Back to the present:
<strong> You have a rational basis for rejecting Last Thursdayism, yet even though, as you assert, "Man's concept of God means that God (if he exists) defies explanation or our attempts to rationalize him," you lack an adequate rational basis for rejecting God? You are hanging on by a very thin thread here mon ami.

Here's something I missed:
<strong> Um, no. The only things we can conceive are those that are logically possible. See <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000257" target="_blank">this thread</a> for grisly details.

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>