| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Antoon Pardon" |
| Date: |
28 Jul 2003 02:56:36 AM |
| Object: |
Re: A Question |
In artikel <r032iv828e0n1cdkal9ujqg335bc2vd0a2@4ax.com> schreef Christopher A Lee:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:49:25 +1000, Martin Crisp
<Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
I recall saying that I couldn't
see how the label 'god' was appropriate for 'creator of the
universe'.
It's not. He's defining one unknown that remains unjustified (God), in
terms of another unknown and unjustified (creator) then giving it an
unqualified "the".
Totally irrelevant. When I have a painting, I can define the au-
thor as the painter or creator. That this doesn't help you in
knowing who this author is supposed to be, is no argument against
the use of "the". Since a painting is supposed to have only
painter, the use of "the" is totally justified. Your protesta-
tions are equivallant to someone who wants a least a school of
painters mentioned in the definition.
And in spite of Scot's (and Antoon's) insistence to the contrary,
"the" describes something _specific_. Which is why it is known as the
definite article.
Yes it describes somethings specific, namely, what is specified
by the definition. This _specific_ needs only to be specified in
a certain context. It doesn't need real life specification that
help you pinpoint it in real life as you insist upon.
Hence the responses of "Which 'supreme being that created/etc'?".
Which is just as silly as the respons: Which painter that created
that painting.
He has no excuse. Antoon _might_ because my command of Flemish and
French isn't strong enough to know if the definite article works
differently in those languages, although I doubt it.
There is no difference in usage of articles between Dutch and En-
glish. I certainly have never encounterd a situation, where a
translation would require a different use of articles in the two
languages and I have more than 25 years of experience.
Then I would be able to answer their question. "yes, [the things
you refer to as] baseballs exist. Why do you call it a 'baseball'?
What makes it special? What do you do with it?"
Let's see him do the same with "God".
As I pointed out earlier, "God" is not like most other words, which
are labels for something that can be demonstrated or at least
justified.
But is this relevant. You can say that "God" is just like most
other words, in that is carries with it a certain meaning that
should enable you to recognize something as "God" if you en-
counter one.
And until he justifies his definition, it is worthless. Simply
asserting it and pointing to a dictionary definition doesn't make it
so. Especially for a "philosophy 101 goof".
Defintion don't need to be justified. At least not in the way you
want him to justify his definition.
The only justified one so far has been the one that describes it in
terms of the religions that teach/believe/etc it as to be the creator
of the universe.
Which is just as silly as describing the painter in terms of who
the owner thinks that painted it. If there is some entity cabable
of creating universes, then what it looks like, or what/who it
is, is not determined by what certain religions think of it.
This can be demonstrated: religions are part of
reality whatever their claims may be; that they believe something is
also part of reality. As is the fact that there are a lot of other
religions as well, each with their different deities.
But it doesn't demonstrate anything about this (supposedly) God.
In my example it the opinion of the owner who had created his
painting, could also be demonstrated. But this would be totally
irrelevant i a definition for the author.
I have no idea what I would do if they described something totally
beyond my experience, could not agree among themselves on fairly
major (apparently, by their bickering/schismatics) attributes of
the thing, could not produce an example or simulcrum of the thing
they were talking about, and could not provide the logic to show
that a thing as they describe is necessarily existant from
observations of reality.
In the absence of that one must come to one's own conclusions as to
what it means. From observation, it is a religious belief.
Which is a category error. Telling that god is a religious belief
is like telling that my son is obsessed with trains. It tells you
something about religions, respectively my son. It doesn't tell
you amything about God or trains.
That's not a definition - dictionaries have definitions report usage
and are a starting point to derive meaning that you don't already
have.
But you did wanted something like this included in the definition
given by Scot. Which is just as silly as wanting my son's obses-
sion with trains be part of the definition of trains.
And which definition or meaning to use, is determined by its context.
Since you asked Scot for his definition, the context is Scot's
understanding. Not yours that you always come up with.
Scot's analogies (not arguments) have all used something better
defined, have a demonstrated basis etc. But most of all show how _he_
sees it in the context of the walk he's walked. He sees it in terms of
something that could or couldn't exist.
And since it was his definition you asked for, what else would
you expect.
I see it in cultural terms:
part of that phenomenon known as religion.
But since you asked for Scot's definition, how *you* see it is
irrelavant. You are like the son of the owner, who when the au-
thor of the painting is brought up, can only think of it in terms
of his father's or (maybe others') opinion.
Actually, yes I do, I'd start investing in sturdy, long-sleeved,
tight-fitting coats that buckle up the back.
Notice how all the work on making 'baseball' meaningful must come
from the ones who refer to (believe in) it?
Bingo.
It is up to them to come up with a justified meaning outside the
confines of their own understanding/experience/religion(*)/etc.
(*) tongue in cheek reference to the "baseball is a religion" metaphor
theists use to "prove" atheism is a religion.
Now, what do you mean by 'God' when you ask:
"Does God exist?"
Back to square one. He's already defined it as "The....." without any
qualification of the context for it and without any justification
other than "the definition" which is disputed for reasons he refuses
to accept.
He did give qualifications. That you have trouble with these
qualifications doesn mean he didn't gave some. And that his defi-
nitions was disputed is IMO totally irrelevant, since the reasons
for disputing it were totally irrelevant.
--
Antoon Pardon
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question |
28 Jul 2003 07:51:38 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jul 2003 07:56:36 GMT, Antoon Pardon <apardon@forel.vub.ac.be>
wrote:
In artikel <r032iv828e0n1cdkal9ujqg335bc2vd0a2@4ax.com> schreef Christopher A Lee:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:49:25 +1000, Martin Crisp
<Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
I recall saying that I couldn't
see how the label 'god' was appropriate for 'creator of the
universe'.
It's not. He's defining one unknown that remains unjustified (God), in
terms of another unknown and unjustified (creator) then giving it an
unqualified "the".
Totally irrelevant. When I have a painting, I can define the au-
thor as the painter or creator. That this doesn't help you in
knowing who this author is supposed to be, is no argument against
the use of "the". Since a painting is supposed to have only
painter, the use of "the" is totally justified. Your protesta-
tions are equivallant to someone who wants a least a school of
painters mentioned in the definition.
Hardly irrelevant - you are equating by analogy somebody who is known
to exist, with something there is no reason even to hypothesise
outside somebody else's religion.
Why do you let the theist's premises apply to you?
And in spite of Scot's (and Antoon's) insistence to the contrary,
"the" describes something _specific_. Which is why it is known as the
definite article.
Yes it describes somethings specific, namely, what is specified
by the definition. This _specific_ needs only to be specified in
a certain context. It doesn't need real life specification that
help you pinpoint it in real life as you insist upon.
Hence the responses of "Which 'supreme being that created/etc'?".
Which is just as silly as the respons: Which painter that created
that painting.
Another worthless analogy. Painters are known to exist. Even you must
realise that. Point to a deity creating the universe.
He has no excuse. Antoon _might_ because my command of Flemish and
French isn't strong enough to know if the definite article works
differently in those languages, although I doubt it.
There is no difference in usage of articles between Dutch and En-
glish. I certainly have never encounterd a situation, where a
translation would require a different use of articles in the two
languages and I have more than 25 years of experience.
Then you are using dumbed-down language when you should be more
precise.
Then I would be able to answer their question. "yes, [the things
you refer to as] baseballs exist. Why do you call it a 'baseball'?
What makes it special? What do you do with it?"
Let's see him do the same with "God".
As I pointed out earlier, "God" is not like most other words, which
are labels for something that can be demonstrated or at least
justified.
But is this relevant. You can say that "God" is just like most
other words, in that is carries with it a certain meaning that
should enable you to recognize something as "God" if you en-
counter one.
Except that it doesn't do this.
And until he justifies his definition, it is worthless. Simply
asserting it and pointing to a dictionary definition doesn't make it
so. Especially for a "philosophy 101 goof".
Defintion don't need to be justified. At least not in the way you
want him to justify his definition.
Of course they do. That's how they are agreed on.
The only justified one so far has been the one that describes it in
terms of the religions that teach/believe/etc it as to be the creator
of the universe.
Which is just as silly as describing the painter in terms of who
the owner thinks that painted it. If there is some entity cabable
of creating universes, then what it looks like, or what/who it
is, is not determined by what certain religions think of it.
Point to this "God". Show it crerating in exactly same way you can do
for a painter.
This can be demonstrated: religions are part of
reality whatever their claims may be; that they believe something is
also part of reality. As is the fact that there are a lot of other
religions as well, each with their different deities.
But it doesn't demonstrate anything about this (supposedly) God.
In my example it the opinion of the owner who had created his
painting, could also be demonstrated. But this would be totally
irrelevant i a definition for the author.
Try to do it without bad analogies.
I have no idea what I would do if they described something totally
beyond my experience, could not agree among themselves on fairly
major (apparently, by their bickering/schismatics) attributes of
the thing, could not produce an example or simulcrum of the thing
they were talking about, and could not provide the logic to show
that a thing as they describe is necessarily existant from
observations of reality.
In the absence of that one must come to one's own conclusions as to
what it means. From observation, it is a religious belief.
Which is a category error. Telling that god is a religious belief
is like telling that my son is obsessed with trains. It tells you
something about religions, respectively my son. It doesn't tell
you amything about God or trains.
Only if you're too stupid to understand the difference between
something demonstrated in the real world and something that isn't.
Give up on these worthless analogioes. They're not getting you
anywhere.
That's not a definition - dictionaries have definitions report usage
and are a starting point to derive meaning that you don't already
have.
But you did wanted something like this included in the definition
given by Scot. Which is just as silly as wanting my son's obses-
sion with trains be part of the definition of trains.
Only because you have been spinning things to fit your ignorant
presumption that evcerybody knows what gods are supposed to be.
And which definition or meaning to use, is determined by its context.
Since you asked Scot for his definition, the context is Scot's
understanding. Not yours that you always come up with.
Except that I wanted one that worked for everybody - because he was
insisting it did before he gave one.
Scot's analogies (not arguments) have all used something better
defined, have a demonstrated basis etc. But most of all show how _he_
sees it in the context of the walk he's walked. He sees it in terms of
something that could or couldn't exist.
And since it was his definition you asked for, what else would
you expect.
It wasn't - because he pretended it worked for everybody inside and
outside monotheism.
Which it doesn't - because the word "The" presumes it without giving
the context within which it can be presumed.
I see it in cultural terms:
part of that phenomenon known as religion.
But since you asked for Scot's definition, how *you* see it is
irrelavant. You are like the son of the owner, who when the au-
thor of the painting is brought up, can only think of it in terms
of his father's or (maybe others') opinion.
No. Scot's definition was invaid and made unjustified presumptions
like "The".
Please explain why you imagine the theists' presumptions apply outside
their theism.
Until you do this you are not contributing anything to the discussion.
Actually, yes I do, I'd start investing in sturdy, long-sleeved,
tight-fitting coats that buckle up the back.
Notice how all the work on making 'baseball' meaningful must come
from the ones who refer to (believe in) it?
Bingo.
It is up to them to come up with a justified meaning outside the
confines of their own understanding/experience/religion(*)/etc.
(*) tongue in cheek reference to the "baseball is a religion" metaphor
theists use to "prove" atheism is a religion.
Now, what do you mean by 'God' when you ask:
"Does God exist?"
Back to square one. He's already defined it as "The....." without any
qualification of the context for it and without any justification
other than "the definition" which is disputed for reasons he refuses
to accept.
He did give qualifications. That you have trouble with these
qualifications doesn mean he didn't gave some. And that his defi-
nitions was disputed is IMO totally irrelevant, since the reasons
for disputing it were totally irrelevant.
Only when he finally added "hypothetical - but he still tried to
browbeat a response about "does it exist?" when he failed to realise
that as a hypothetical there was no reason to consider it because the
onus is completely on the believer.
Would YOU invent a god to "believe it doesbn't exist"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot McDermid" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question |
28 Jul 2003 10:24:26 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:2a6aiv0ecm89qgota18dut6u8tpeac59j1@4ax.com...
On 28 Jul 2003 07:56:36 GMT, Antoon Pardon <apardon@forel.vub.ac.be>
wrote:
In artikel <r032iv828e0n1cdkal9ujqg335bc2vd0a2@4ax.com> schreef
Christopher A Lee:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:49:25 +1000, Martin Crisp
<Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
I recall saying that I couldn't
see how the label 'god' was appropriate for 'creator of the
universe'.
It's not. He's defining one unknown that remains unjustified (God), in
terms of another unknown and unjustified (creator) then giving it an
unqualified "the".
Totally irrelevant. When I have a painting, I can define the au-
thor as the painter or creator. That this doesn't help you in
knowing who this author is supposed to be, is no argument against
the use of "the". Since a painting is supposed to have only
painter, the use of "the" is totally justified. Your protesta-
tions are equivallant to someone who wants a least a school of
painters mentioned in the definition.
Hardly irrelevant - you are equating by analogy somebody who is known
to exist, with something there is no reason even to hypothesise
outside somebody else's religion.
Why do you let the theist's premises apply to you?
Christianity (example of theism) builds it's religion on a premise
and that premise seems to be "God so loved the world that He
gave his only Son. So that anyone who believes in Him would
not die but have eternal life."
Now if you want to discuss whether this is actually the premise
upon which Christianity is based then we could do that.
But Christianity also makes CLAIMS. They claim that
"God exists", and they say that God is an all-seeing,
all-powerful entity that created the universe. Now if
that claim is TRUE then it is TRUE of objective reality.
And if it is true of objective reality then it would apply to
all of us.
And in spite of Scot's (and Antoon's) insistence to the contrary,
"the" describes something _specific_. Which is why it is known as the
definite article.
Yes. The definite article does describe something specific.
So in the statement "God is the creator of the universe", "the
creator" presupposes that the universe was created by one and
only one creator.
Using the alternative (the indefinite article) the statement would
be "God is a creator of the universe". This statement presupposes
that the universe was created by a team and God was one member
of the team.
So the problem isn't with the definite article (or indefinite article)
the problem is that the definition we are trying to make looks like
a claim. So let's rewrite the definition so it looks like a definition.
The word "God" is defined as "the creator of the universe".
Now that doesn't presuppose existence of any creator.
Then I would be able to answer their question. "yes, [the things
you refer to as] baseballs exist. Why do you call it a 'baseball'?
What makes it special? What do you do with it?"
Let's see him do the same with "God".
As I pointed out earlier, "God" is not like most other words, which
are labels for something that can be demonstrated or at least
justified.
But is this relevant. You can say that "God" is just like most
other words, in that is carries with it a certain meaning that
should enable you to recognize something as "God" if you en-
counter one.
Except that it doesn't do this.
Then the problem is that the word God is not defined precisely enough.
And until he justifies his definition, it is worthless. Simply
asserting it and pointing to a dictionary definition doesn't make it
so. Especially for a "philosophy 101 goof".
Defintion don't need to be justified. At least not in the way you
want him to justify his definition.
Of course they do. That's how they are agreed on.
You insist that the word God refers only to something in
someone's religion despite the adherents of those religion
claim the God is something in objective reality. So, if
THEY claim God is something that exists in objective
reality AND we wish to examine their claim THEN we
should use a definition of God that treats Him/Her/It as
something that may or may not exist in objective reality.
The only justified one so far has been the one that describes it in
terms of the religions that teach/believe/etc it as to be the creator
of the universe.
Yes. They believe it: They claim their God exists.
IF we wish to examine the truth of their claim THEN we
should use a definition of God that treats Him/Her/It as
something that may or may not exist in objective reality.
Which is just as silly as describing the painter in terms of who
the owner thinks that painted it. If there is some entity cabable
of creating universes, then what it looks like, or what/who it
is, is not determined by what certain religions think of it.
Right. IF we accept the definition "God is defined as the creator
of the universe" AND we find such an entity THEN we can be
sure that we have found God.
Point to this "God". Show it crerating in exactly same way you can do
for a painter.
I can't. I believe that no such thing exists.
Would YOU invent a god to "believe it doesbn't exist"?
I don't "invent a God to believe it doesn't exist".
Theists define what they mean by God and claim that their
God exists. I think they are wrong.
On the other hand, you think there is isn't any reason to
hypothesize such an entity. In this way, you substitute
one question ("Does God exist?") and belief ("No, it doesn't")
with another question ("Is there reason to hypothesize a God
entity?") and belief ("No, there isn't.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antoon Pardon" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question |
30 Jul 2003 03:02:52 AM |
|
|
In artikel <KebVa.167717$H17.59728@sccrnsc02> schreef Scot McDermid:
And in spite of Scot's (and Antoon's) insistence to the contrary,
"the" describes something _specific_. Which is why it is known as the
definite article.
Yes. The definite article does describe something specific.
So in the statement "God is the creator of the universe", "the
creator" presupposes that the universe was created by one and
only one creator.
If it is a statement without context, I agree. But within the
context of a definition that is to be used in a debate of
somekind where one wants to examine whether or not such a God ex-
ists, I disagree.
Using the alternative (the indefinite article) the statement would
be "God is a creator of the universe". This statement presupposes
that the universe was created by a team and God was one member
of the team.
So the problem isn't with the definite article (or indefinite article)
the problem is that the definition we are trying to make looks like
a claim. So let's rewrite the definition so it looks like a definition.
The word "God" is defined as "the creator of the universe".
Now that doesn't presuppose existence of any creator.
Well if you really want a definition where a presupposition can't
be read into, I propose the following:
| An entity is God if it created the universe and it is the only
| one to have created the universe.
However almost noone uses this kind of definitions outside mathe-
matics and formal logic. So this definition will be often worded
as follows in everyday language:
| God is (by definition) the entity that created the universe.
And whether the subject was God or a murderer (in case of a sus-
picious dead, where is wasn't established yet that it was really
murder) or something different, I have never encountered anyone
that didn't understand that the second definition was everyday
shorthand for the first. Noone had trouble understanding that
this God (or murderer) was not brought into existance by the def-
inition and that prior to evidence being brought into view this
God (or murderer) may very well not exists.
--
Antoon Pardon
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question |
28 Jul 2003 04:38:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:24:26 GMT, "Scot McDermid"
<scotmc@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:2a6aiv0ecm89qgota18dut6u8tpeac59j1@4ax.com...
On 28 Jul 2003 07:56:36 GMT, Antoon Pardon <apardon@forel.vub.ac.be>
wrote:
In artikel <r032iv828e0n1cdkal9ujqg335bc2vd0a2@4ax.com> schreef
Christopher A Lee:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:49:25 +1000, Martin Crisp
<Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
I recall saying that I couldn't
see how the label 'god' was appropriate for 'creator of the
universe'.
It's not. He's defining one unknown that remains unjustified (God), in
terms of another unknown and unjustified (creator) then giving it an
unqualified "the".
Totally irrelevant. When I have a painting, I can define the au-
thor as the painter or creator. That this doesn't help you in
knowing who this author is supposed to be, is no argument against
the use of "the". Since a painting is supposed to have only
painter, the use of "the" is totally justified. Your protesta-
tions are equivallant to someone who wants a least a school of
painters mentioned in the definition.
Hardly irrelevant - you are equating by analogy somebody who is known
to exist, with something there is no reason even to hypothesise
outside somebody else's religion.
Why do you let the theist's premises apply to you?
Christianity (example of theism) builds it's religion on a premise
and that premise seems to be "God so loved the world that He
gave his only Son. So that anyone who believes in Him would
not die but have eternal life."
Now if you want to discuss whether this is actually the premise
upon which Christianity is based then we could do that.
But Christianity also makes CLAIMS. They claim that
"God exists", and they say that God is an all-seeing,
all-powerful entity that created the universe. Now if
that claim is TRUE then it is TRUE of objective reality.
And if it is true of objective reality then it would apply to
all of us.
And in spite of Scot's (and Antoon's) insistence to the contrary,
"the" describes something _specific_. Which is why it is known as the
definite article.
Yes. The definite article does describe something specific.
So in the statement "God is the creator of the universe", "the
creator" presupposes that the universe was created by one and
only one creator.
But WHAT "the creator of the universe"? That is STILL an unjustified
presumption.
Using the alternative (the indefinite article) the statement would
be "God is a creator of the universe". This statement presupposes
that the universe was created by a team and God was one member
of the team.
So the problem isn't with the definite article (or indefinite article)
the problem is that the definition we are trying to make looks like
a claim. So let's rewrite the definition so it looks like a definition.
That's what the definite article does. Please explain WHAT "the
creator" or even "a creator" that would be?
The word "God" is defined as "the creator of the universe".
Now that doesn't presuppose existence of any creator.
Yes, it does. What "THE creator"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot McDermid" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question |
28 Jul 2003 05:56:21 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g25biv4ep6gfeh65l8d6i2281as8pn0u5m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:24:26 GMT, "Scot McDermid"
<scotmc@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:2a6aiv0ecm89qgota18dut6u8tpeac59j1@4ax.com...
On 28 Jul 2003 07:56:36 GMT, Antoon Pardon <apardon@forel.vub.ac.be>
wrote:
In artikel <r032iv828e0n1cdkal9ujqg335bc2vd0a2@4ax.com> schreef
Christopher A Lee:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:49:25 +1000, Martin Crisp
<Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
I recall saying that I couldn't
see how the label 'god' was appropriate for 'creator of the
universe'.
It's not. He's defining one unknown that remains unjustified (God),
in
terms of another unknown and unjustified (creator) then giving it an
unqualified "the".
Totally irrelevant. When I have a painting, I can define the au-
thor as the painter or creator. That this doesn't help you in
knowing who this author is supposed to be, is no argument against
the use of "the". Since a painting is supposed to have only
painter, the use of "the" is totally justified. Your protesta-
tions are equivallant to someone who wants a least a school of
painters mentioned in the definition.
Hardly irrelevant - you are equating by analogy somebody who is known
to exist, with something there is no reason even to hypothesise
outside somebody else's religion.
Why do you let the theist's premises apply to you?
Christianity (example of theism) builds it's religion on a premise
and that premise seems to be "God so loved the world that He
gave his only Son. So that anyone who believes in Him would
not die but have eternal life."
Now if you want to discuss whether this is actually the premise
upon which Christianity is based then we could do that.
But Christianity also makes CLAIMS. They claim that
"God exists", and they say that God is an all-seeing,
all-powerful entity that created the universe. Now if
that claim is TRUE then it is TRUE of objective reality.
And if it is true of objective reality then it would apply to
all of us.
And in spite of Scot's (and Antoon's) insistence to the contrary,
"the" describes something _specific_. Which is why it is known as
the
definite article.
Yes. The definite article does describe something specific.
So in the statement "God is the creator of the universe", "the
creator" presupposes that the universe was created by one and
only one creator.
But WHAT "the creator of the universe"? That is STILL an unjustified
presumption.
Yes. I said that.
Using the alternative (the indefinite article) the statement would
be "God is a creator of the universe". This statement presupposes
that the universe was created by a team and God was one member
of the team.
So the problem isn't with the definite article (or indefinite article)
the problem is that the definition we are trying to make looks like
a claim. So let's rewrite the definition so it looks like a definition.
That's what the definite article does. Please explain WHAT "the
creator" or even "a creator" that would be?
You are raising a complaint about the definite article "because it
unjustifiedly presumes existence of a creator". But I showed
above that using the indefinite article ALSO makes an unjustified
presumption. In your last statement (immediately above) you
ALSO use an example containing the indefinite article. Your last
statement makes it clear that you either aren't paying attention,
or you are incapable of understanding. The use of the definite
article is not the problem.
The word "God" is defined as "the creator of the universe".
Now that doesn't presuppose existence of any creator.
Yes, it does. What "THE creator"?
NO. A definition does not presuppose existence of the thing being
defined. You might not completely agree with the following definition
but I use them only to illustrate that definitions do not presuppose the
existence of the thing being defined.
Example definition #1: 'Arthritis' is defined as 'the inflammation of
joints'."
That definition does not presuppose that someone somewhere has
inflamed joints. It actually doesn't even presuppose the existence of
joints.
But it means if someone somewhere has joints that are inflamed then we
would call their condition "arthritis".
Example definition #2: 'Squalbinventor' is defined as 'the creator of the
squalb'.
By that definition, if someone made an invention and called his/her
invention a squalb then that person would be the squalbinventor.
But the definition is still perfectly valid now even though there are
(currently) no squalbs and no creator thereof.
The definition we are discussing:
'God' is defined as "the creator of the universe".
By that definition, if we someday find an entity that created our
universe then we would call that entity God.
The definition is perfectly valid now even though there is (currently)
no evidence of a creator of the universe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Antoon Pardon" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question |
29 Jul 2003 01:39:19 AM |
|
|
In artikel <2a6aiv0ecm89qgota18dut6u8tpeac59j1@4ax.com> schreef Christopher A Lee:
On 28 Jul 2003 07:56:36 GMT, Antoon Pardon <apardon@forel.vub.ac.be>
wrote:
In artikel <r032iv828e0n1cdkal9ujqg335bc2vd0a2@4ax.com> schreef Christopher A Lee:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:49:25 +1000, Martin Crisp
<Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
I recall saying that I couldn't
see how the label 'god' was appropriate for 'creator of the
universe'.
It's not. He's defining one unknown that remains unjustified (God), in
terms of another unknown and unjustified (creator) then giving it an
unqualified "the".
Totally irrelevant. When I have a painting, I can define the au-
thor as the painter or creator. That this doesn't help you in
knowing who this author is supposed to be, is no argument against
the use of "the". Since a painting is supposed to have only
painter, the use of "the" is totally justified. Your protesta-
tions are equivallant to someone who wants a least a school of
painters mentioned in the definition.
Hardly irrelevant - you are equating by analogy somebody who is known
to exist, with something there is no reason even to hypothesise
outside somebody else's religion.
Yes it is irrelavant, for the simple reason that the english
language has no rules that say the use of articles depend
on whether something exists or is not even hypothetical.
Why do you let the theist's premises apply to you?
Why do you continue playing dumb?
And in spite of Scot's (and Antoon's) insistence to the contrary,
"the" describes something _specific_. Which is why it is known as the
definite article.
Yes it describes somethings specific, namely, what is specified
by the definition. This _specific_ needs only to be specified in
a certain context. It doesn't need real life specification that
help you pinpoint it in real life as you insist upon.
Hence the responses of "Which 'supreme being that created/etc'?".
Which is just as silly as the respons: Which painter that created
that painting.
Another worthless analogy. Painters are known to exist. Even you must
realise that. Point to a deity creating the universe.
The original definition of Scot didn't mention deities. If I re-
call it said something like: "The supreme entity or the creator".
(I assume he means the creator of the universe with the last) So
I can point to entities and I can even point people that create
things, so I can point to creators. Now I can't point to the
supreme entity and I can't point to who or what created the uni-
verse, but you can't point to the painter of this painting ei-
ther.
And maybe this "painting" didn't had a painter either. Maybe it
was the result of somekind of accident that had an appealing vi-
sual quality, that gave some impression of it being painted while
in reality it was not.
There is no difference in usage of articles between Dutch and En-
glish. I certainly have never encounterd a situation, where a
translation would require a different use of articles in the two
languages and I have more than 25 years of experience.
Then you are using dumbed-down language when you should be more
precise.
My knowlegde of english tells me my use is precise enough and
that you are inventing rules with regards the use of articles
that don't exist.
But is this relevant. You can say that "God" is just like most
other words, in that is carries with it a certain meaning that
should enable you to recognize something as "God" if you en-
counter one.
Except that it doesn't do this.
That is your opinion.
Defintion don't need to be justified. At least not in the way you
want him to justify his definition.
Of course they do. That's how they are agreed on.
Definitions don't need to be agreed upon. If someone want to de-
fine gods as mushrooms I will not agree with that definition, but
within a context where this definition is used I will have little
difficulty discussing which gods are edible and which are not.
Which is just as silly as describing the painter in terms of who
the owner thinks that painted it. If there is some entity cabable
of creating universes, then what it looks like, or what/who it
is, is not determined by what certain religions think of it.
Point to this "God". Show it crerating in exactly same way you can do
for a painter.
Why do I have to show *this* God", but is it sufficient to only
show *a* painter and not *this* author. If you think it it has to
be possible to show *this* "God", then it should be possible to
show *this* "author" as these are the terms being defined in ei-
ther analogy. If you think it is sufficient to show *a* painter,
then it should be sufficient to show *an* entity, since these are
the terms used in either definition.
But it doesn't demonstrate anything about this (supposedly) God.
In my example it the opinion of the owner who had created his
painting, could also be demonstrated. But this would be totally
irrelevant i a definition for the author.
Try to do it without bad analogies.
There is nothing wrong with the analogy. Just mixups on your
part.
In both cases something that you can't point at, and in fact may
not exist, is being defined in terms of something you can point
at. So these analogies are equivallent in that respect.
Which is a category error. Telling that god is a religious belief
is like telling that my son is obsessed with trains. It tells you
something about religions, respectively my son. It doesn't tell
you amything about God or trains.
Only if you're too stupid to understand the difference between
something demonstrated in the real world and something that isn't.
If someone is obsessed with something, or believes in something
that doesn't tell you anything about this something. Whether this
something is demonstrated in the real world or not doesn't change
anything about that.
Give up on these worthless analogioes. They're not getting you
anywhere.
That these analogies don't get me anywhere is more the result of
your mixups than the quality of the analogy.
But you did wanted something like this included in the definition
given by Scot. Which is just as silly as wanting my son's obses-
sion with trains be part of the definition of trains.
Only because you have been spinning things to fit your ignorant
presumption that evcerybody knows what gods are supposed to be.
No, you have been spinning things around. You are acting like you
know what this god is supposed to be because you are the one who
wants to tailor other people's definitions. I don't presuppose to
know what it is about and so take any definition given to me at
face value.
For all I care Scot's original definition could have pointed at
the president of the U.S. or the secretary general of the U.N.
but you seemed unable to look at the definition without theistic
blinders. Trying the whole time to insert notions from a particu-
lar religion and having notions that deities should be involved,
arguing about the use of articles, alle except just looking at
the words of the definition and going from there.
And then I am the one that wants this notion to be fitted? You
are the one with notions you want fitted. Not I. You want it fit-
ted around monotheistic traditions. Yes these are not your tradi-
tions, yet you still insisted that notions from these traditions
be included in the definition.
Since you asked Scot for his definition, the context is Scot's
understanding. Not yours that you always come up with.
Except that I wanted one that worked for everybody - because he was
insisting it did before he gave one.
And the one he originaly gave, worked. But you didn't like that
and have been bending over backwards to find fault with it.
And since it was his definition you asked for, what else would
you expect.
It wasn't - because he pretended it worked for everybody inside and
outside monotheism.
It does work. You couldn't give one relevant argument why it
wouldn't work.
Which it doesn't - because the word "The" presumes it without giving
the context within which it can be presumed.
Repeating the same silliness over and over again won't make it
true.
But since you asked for Scot's definition, how *you* see it is
irrelavant. You are like the son of the owner, who when the au-
thor of the painting is brought up, can only think of it in terms
of his father's or (maybe others') opinion.
No. Scot's definition was invaid and made unjustified presumptions
like "The".
Ad nauseam.
Please explain why you imagine the theists' presumptions apply outside
their theism.
Please explain why you keep playing dumb.
Until you do this you are not contributing anything to the discussion.
Until you do this, you are not contributing anything to the discussion.
He did give qualifications. That you have trouble with these
qualifications doesn mean he didn't gave some. And that his defi-
nitions was disputed is IMO totally irrelevant, since the reasons
for disputing it were totally irrelevant.
Only when he finally added "hypothetical - but he still tried to
browbeat a response about "does it exist?"
Adding "hypothetical" was not necessary. You surely didn't insist
on it in the first place, when you wanted to have included that
it was believed in by monotheistic traditions. If you think "hyp-
thetical" is necessary, then you should have asked to include
"the hypthetical entity that is believed in by monotheistic tra-
ditions" or something like that. Otherwise one could argue that
the additions you proposed presumed that the deity as believed in
by monotheistic traditions really existed.
when he failed to realise
that as a hypothetical there was no reason to consider it because the
onus is completely on the believer.
Scot wants to consider it. And as far as I understand would like
to debate this question with other people who like to consider
it. If you don't want to consider it then you are just not in his
audience and your objections are just irrelevant.
IMO it is not a question of there being reasons to consider it,
but whether one is willing to consider it. One can consider some-
thing even if there is no good reason for it and one can refuse
to consider something even if there are good reasons to do so.
But the fact remains that in order to talk about something the
participants have to agree to consider it, at least for sake of
arguments within the context of the talk/debate/argument.
As far as I can see, you are not prepared to do that.
Would YOU invent a god to "believe it doesbn't exist"?
Would YOU invent a god to "not have a reason to consider it"?
--
Antoon Pardon
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
