galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote:I wasn't kidding back when I posted "Checkmate"

You really totally fucked everything up when you said:

galanter wrote:How I've defined God is a common minimal definition, not a set-up.

You must see that this totally untenable position and undermines everything you say from the source.

A definition isn't a position, it's just a definition.

A position would be a statement as to whether such a thing as defined exists.

If you are saying "you're wrong about God possibly existing because God doesn't exist" that isn't saying much.

Finally, defining God as a consciousness which is the ground of all being is about as neutral and widely accepted a definition of a monotheistic god as I know of. ("ground of all being" is a more accurate phrase for the less formal "perfect creator of all things").

Yes, but it is you that is creating the definition. This definition exists only in the mind of people like yourself. There is zero evidence that this is any more "real" than anything else.

What you are doing is building an argument around a created definition. All you are saying is, "this God is possible if you definite as X". I am saying you have no ground to stand on for this position.

You avoid answering questions about whether you have an agnostic position to Zeus and co. by falling into the position of the self/commonly definited monotheistic God. This fails to answer the question why this God is worthy of an agnostic position, yet you refuse to give the same argument for any God apart from the self/commonly definited monotheistic God that Western philosophy has struggled with for centuries.

galanter wrote:
Finally, defining God as a consciousness which is the ground of all being is about as neutral and widely accepted a definition of a monotheistic god as I know of.

This falls prey to the Wittgensteinian objection that it means nothing, Phil.
This definition is meaningless. Nothing is said with it.

The trouble with "Wittgensteinian" is that there is more than one Wittgenstein...he changed his story along the way.

In any case...you both seem to be taking some kind of meta-agnostic position...i.e. we can say nothing about God because the term is meaningless.

I'm tempted to say "what part of God don't you understand"? All the component terms are understandable. Put together they do not form an oxymoron or other self-contradictory concept.

And besides, a meta-agnostic position is still an agnostic position, and my opposition is not to that but rather to statements such as "I know, without a doubt, that God doesn't exist". The meta-agnostic position would cut in every direction including against atheism.

galanter wrote:The trouble with "Wittgensteinian" is that there is more than one Wittgenstein...he changed his story along the way.

In any case...you both seem to be taking some kind of meta-agnostic position...i.e. we can say nothing about God because the term is meaningless.

I'm tempted to say "what part of God don't you understand"? All the component terms are understandable. Put together they do not form an oxymoron or other self-contradictory concept.

And besides, a meta-agnostic position is still an agnostic position, and my opposition is not to that but rather to statements such as "I know, without a doubt, that God doesn't exist". The meta-agnostic position would cut in every direction including against atheism.

Yes, but you can't even define what it is that you are an agnostic about, without contradicting your position. To create a position of the agnostic you have to create the God to be agnostic about in the first place.

galanter wrote:The trouble with "Wittgensteinian" is that there is more than one Wittgenstein...he changed his story along the way.

An expression like "God is conciousness and the ground of all being" is meaningless in both Wittgenstein I and Wittgenstein II. But really I don´t want to get into that.

I'm tempted to say "what part of God don't you understand"? All the component terms are understandable. Put together they do not form an oxymoron or other self-contradictory concept.

I don´t understand what "conciousness" means, nor do I understand what the "the ground of all being" is.

Please explain.

Oy.

Defining a term does not assume the thing the term defined exists. It, at most, suggests the question "does it exist or not?".

For example, I can define "unicorn" as a horse-like animal with a single horn. By stating that definition I've not assumed it exists or doesn't. This kind of thing happens in mathematics *all the time*. It happens in a different way in science *all the time*.

Discussions of the form "X is defined as Y. Does X exist?" are clearly allowable and potentially even rational.

As for the meaning of the definition I offered...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conscious

http://dictionary.reference.com/search? ... sciousness

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15189.htm

I was falsely accused of arguing "how can we know anything" but this is going down the path of "how can we know what words mean". If you really believe we can't know what words mean, then why would you ever post on any board anywhere, let alone here on this topic?

And again, I'll point out that the position that we simply can't talk about God at all does as much damage to the atheist position as the theist position...and could be viewed as a form of agnosticism in that it questions our ability to know whether or not God exists.

I'm still waiting for the case to be made that God, without any doubt, does not exist. The only case I hear from the nominally atheist here is "God is something I just don't think about"...which isn't much of a critique of agnosticism or theism.

galanter wrote:Oy.

Defining a term does not assume the thing the term defines exists. It, at most, suggests the question "does it exist or not?".

For example, I can define "unicorn" as a horse-like animal with a single horn. By stating that definition I've not assumed it exists or doesn't. This kind of thing happens in mathematics *all the time*. It happens in a different way in science *all the time*.

So you are saying we need to be agnostic about unicorns now?

galanter wrote:I was falsely accused of arguing "how can we know anything" but this is going down the path of "how can we know what words mean". If you really believe we can't know what words mean, then why would you ever post on any board anywhere, let alone here on this topic?

If you are not arguing, "how can we know anything", then why is this God you've defined subject to a dfferent set of rules to everything else?

galanter wrote:And again, I'll point out that the position that we simply can't talk about God at all does as much damage to the atheist position as the theist position...and could be viewed as a form of agnosticism in that it questions our ability to know whether or not God exists.

Yes, but the problem still is that this God requires inventing, there is no evidence of existence outside of the human mind.

galanter wrote:I'm still waiting for the case to be made that God, without any doubt, does not exist. The only case I hear from the nominally atheist here is "God is something I just don't think about"...which isn't much of a critique of agnosticism or theism.

Not at all. There is no evidence for the existence of a God, never has been, most likely never will be. If you can refute this you've just answered the "big" question.

I will retort with the standard, but most logical line: the burden of proof isn't on the atheist, because the atheist isn't proposing anything. Otherwise you are descending to the nonsense, because how can you then say, 'I was falsely accused of arguing "how can we know anything"' , but then argue that this God is beyond this argument.

You are creating an agnostic position that is untenable, because it is impossible separate this God you speak of from "unicorn" without creating it's attributes in the first place.

galanter wrote:I'm still waiting for the case to be made that magic elves, without any doubt, do not exist.

Are you really still waiting for this case to be made? Seriously?

endofanera wrote:

galanter wrote:I'm still waiting for the case to be made that magic elves, without any doubt, do not exist.

Are you really still waiting for this case to be made? Seriously?

Agreed, I thought you were saying that "how is anything possible", isn't your position...

I accept that this is not, in fact, the worst thread ever.

For the record.