Argument From Non-cognitivism

[Asimov]

I seem to remember having a discussion regarding the idea that God is meaningless....this is the idea behind the Non-Cognitivism argument which states that God lacks meaning, therefore the concept of God is invalid.

 

I couldn't get my point across so I found this at strongatheism.net.

 

There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:

 

1. Primary Attributes

2. Secondary Attributes

3. Relational Attributes.

 

B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.

The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.

Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)

However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.

Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

[Fweethawt]

Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

Nah. He's just so far above mere Human Understanding™ that the normal rules of logic can not possibly apply when refering to Him.

 

[SBeeland]

I seem to remember having a discussion regarding the idea that God is meaningless....this is the idea behind the Non-Cognitivism argument which states that God lacks meaning, therefore the concept of God is invalid.

 

I couldn't get my point across so I found this at strongatheism.net.

 

There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:

 

1. Primary Attributes

2. Secondary Attributes

3. Relational Attributes.

 

B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.

The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.

Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)

However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.

Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

 

Back when I was little I was dumb enough to think all people thought this way. (Well not the exact same way but I think I know what you mean.) But how can anyone argue this against people who immediately shout off "God's in a higher dimension" or something similiar. Those people seriously believe what Fweethawt said.

[Asimov]

Back when I was little I was dumb enough to think all people thought this way. (Well not the exact same way but I think I know what you mean.) But how can anyone argue this against people who immediately shout off "God's in a higher dimension" or something similiar. Those people seriously believe what Fweethawt said.

 

I hope you're not calling me dumb. I've killed people for less.

 

You can't argue against those who don't accept reality for what it is. You can just hope that they get killed in the next zebra crossing.

 

I argue against those with actual attempts at logical arguments. Anything else and you're just beating your head against the wall.

[SBeeland]

I hope you're not calling me dumb. I've killed people for less.

You can't argue against those who don't accept reality for what it is. You can just hope that they get killed in the next zebra crossing. I argue against those with actual attempts at logical arguments. Anything else and you're just beating your head against the wall.

 

Well no, I wasn't calling you dumb. I'd love to see someone come in here and debate it, but I guarantee that any apologetic's attempt at logical arguments will eventually become "we can't comprehend God."

[Asimov]

I hope you're not calling me dumb. I've killed people for less.

You can't argue against those who don't accept reality for what it is. You can just hope that they get killed in the next zebra crossing. I argue against those with actual attempts at logical arguments. Anything else and you're just beating your head against the wall.

 

Well no, I wasn't calling you dumb. I'd love to see someone come in here and debate it, but I guarantee that any apologetic's attempt at logical arguments will eventually become "we can't comprehend God."

 

Well if that's true, then anything I say about God can be true...God could exist and not exist at the same time.

 

If they're gonna abandon logic in order to hold on to their belief, then they have another think coming!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or maybe I'm just drunk....bahahhaha.

[HuaiDan]

For us non-Logic majors, would you please define primary attributes, secondary attributes, and relational attributes, which are numbered 1, 2and 3, but in your syllogism are referred to as a, b, and c?

[Asimov]

For us non-Logic majors, would you please define primary attributes, secondary attributes, and relational attributes, which are numbered 1, 2and 3, but in your syllogism are referred to as a, b, and c?

 

Let's see if I can explain it.

 

Primary Attributes: Attributes that define the make-up of the object and which B and C are dependant upon. It provides the foundation of identity.

 

A chair -

 

Primary Attributes: a platform resting on 4 legs with another platform perpendicular to the first that provides a back.

 

Secondary Attributes: Made of wood, designed in an artistic fashion that gives it an aesthetic appeal and has a cushion.

 

Relational Attributes: Used for sitting on.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

then they have another think coming!

 

Aside: kudos to Asimov for being the first person Ive ever seen to correctly phrase this colloquialism. Judas Priest be damned!

[Asimov]

then they have another think coming!

 

Aside: kudos to Asimov for being the first person Ive ever seen to correctly phrase this colloquialism. Judas Priest be damned!

 

What would be an improper way of phrasing it?

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

As per my Judas Priest example...

 

 

"You gotta nother thing coming!"

[Asimov]

As per my Judas Priest example...

 

 

"You gotta nother thing coming!"

 

Hahaha, never heard that!

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

I live in Nashville, Tennessee.

[Dhampir]

If someone says that we cannot comprehend god with our logic, remind them that if we can't do that, that is the very definition of meaningless. Or you could say that if they use logic to say that they can't use logic, then their logic is off.

[spamandham]

In support of noncognitivism, it's true that most definitions of god are incomprehensible. Yet at the same time, believers often claim god is incomprehensible by definition.

 

It's also true that reality, in whatever form it takes, is under no obligation to be comprehensible to us. We should consider ourselves fortunate to be able to comprehend as much as we do.

 

So then, while it might be the case that a complete understnding of reality might be in some aspects forever beyond our reach, it is not the case that that which is beyond comprehension is also knowable.

 

Thus, those who say god is incomprehensible yet proceed to describe him in any regard whatsoever, are making a grave error. If there is an incomprehensible aspect of reality of some kind, it is irrelevent to us, as we can not comprehend it.

[Asimov]

In support of noncognitivism, it's true that most definitions of god are incomprehensible. Yet at the same time, believers often claim god is incomprehensible by definition.

 

It's also true that reality, in whatever form it takes, is under no obligation to be comprehensible to us. We should consider ourselves fortunate to be able to comprehend as much as we do.

 

So then, while it might be the case that a complete understnding of reality might be in some aspects forever beyond our reach, it is not the case that that which is beyond comprehension is also knowable.

 

Thus, those who say god is incomprehensible yet proceed to describe him in any regard whatsoever, are making a grave error. If there is an incomprehensible aspect of reality of some kind, it is irrelevent to us, as we can not comprehend it.

 

Yes, but we are talking about humanities perspective, which happens to be the only perspective that we have.

 

So even though our understanding might be beyond understanding God....if God is meaningless to us in regards to our epistemic systems, then it doesn't matter because we'll have no way of knowing.

[spamandham]

if God is meaningless to us in regards to our epistemic systems, then it doesn't matter because we'll have no way of knowing.

 

We're in complete agreement in that regard.

[Kuroikaze]

yeah, its one of the great contradictions of christianity to claim God is incomprehensible by men and then claim the bible ( that was written by men) is the absolute word of God without error.

[Lycorth]

Yes, but we are talking about humanities perspective, which happens to be the only perspective that we have.

 

So even though our understanding might be beyond understanding God....if God is meaningless to us in regards to our epistemic systems, then it doesn't matter because we'll have no way of knowing.

 

I agree fully. As a Deist, while I do believe there was at least one Creator, reason and truth are my guides. I know full well I cannot positively identify any of the Creator(s) primary attributes, so therefore I cannot assign any secondary or relational attributes to the Creator(s). And since we're not being shown anything we can positively identify, "knowing God" (as a Xian might put it) is wholly and completely irrelevant to me. There's no need to go on foolhardy "spiritual quests" to find a magic sky daddy - if he was there or if it were important to your life, you'd be able to make a positive identification. Otherwise, it's all hearsay, and too much time spent on hearsay is wasted time, indeed.

 

I'd love to see a Xian try to wrap their brains around that

[Asimov]

Well I think the Deist position is incomprehensibly odd for much the same reason.

[Lycorth]

Well I think the Deist position is incomprehensibly odd for much the same reason.

 

If you're a member here and don't think Deists are odd, then you're seriously fucked...

[♦ ficino ♦]

If someone says that we cannot comprehend god with our logic, remind them that if we can't do that, that is the very definition of meaningless. Or you could say that if they use logic to say that they can't use logic, then their logic is off.

 

Yes, apologists who resort to "God is above logic" wind up annihilating all discourse. They fail to realize that anything follows from a contradiction. That's because, if A and not-A can be predicated of the same thing under the same set of relations, words mean anything, there are no laws of thought, and all statements are true. When I tried the "God is above the principle of non-contradiction" maneuver in my fundy days, one person (an Objectivist) got up and threatened to walk away. She pointed out I would not be saying anything meaningful.