I have some thing in my hand. It's not a spoon it's not a fork ,it's not a gun ,it's not an American flag. It's not a bible ,it's not paper or plastic and it's not any type of metal. I could go on for days telling you what isn't in my hand but that wouldn't tell you what is. Therefore you have no choice but to remain agnostic about what I mean when I say something is in my hand. So it goes with the word God! When I ask Christians/apologists/theologians what god is they say he is spirit, and when I ask what spirit is they say immaterial. Non existence is non material because non existence doesn't exist! They try to define god by saying god is good loving all powerful all knowing 3 persons in one ontology (being) ,but that doesnt tell me what they mean by being. Talking about character doesn't define existence. Since they can't tell me what god is, I can't even asses the probability of their claim. In fact their claim is no more meaningful, logical, or explanatory than "blue sleeps faster than Wednesday". Their claim is no more sensical than saying " there is a great blah in the sky!".The Christian orthodox concept of deity isn't really a concept because it's not conceptual. Many say that it is possible to conceptualize something that doesn't exist, but they are wrong! They say that unicorns are conceptual, but the problem with their assertion is that horses exist and horns exist and all one is doing ,is taking two diferent concepts of two physical objects and calling them a unicorn. Every conceptualization is a mere compilations of physical objects. When we create a person in our minds all we are doing is taking some physical characteristics that we have seen in the past and scrambling them all together to make a new arrangement. So even in that sense we are not conceptualizing anything non existent or immaterial. Everything we know and can conceptualize (with any level of certainty) is merely the result of sensory input into our physical brains. Saying something or someone is immaterial is meaningless to me because everything in my personal experience has only been physical (energy or matter). Thanks for taking the time to read this post and may the blah be with you whatever that means lol .Please leave a comment. Sincerely James T Stillwell 3.
Earlier today I was perusing James White's YouTube channel and noticed he posted a conversation with you. I was immediately intrigued by your personal story: a preacher who had protracted doubts about the Christian faith and eventually abandoned his beliefs--that reminds me of me! One difference, though: I'm still a Christian.
ReplyDeleteI was raised in a conservative Christian family and was converted at age 12. I'm currently finishing up a master's degree in theology, and hopefully will be starting a PhD degree in January. It sounds like many of our interests intersect, and I'd love to continue the conversation about your turn to atheism.
I would like now, however, to make a couple of comments on your post. You're touching here on a debate about the meaningfulness of what's been termed "God-talk." How can humans make meaningful statements about a being who, if he exists, is so far removed from humankind? I don't pretend to have the all answers to kinds of questions, but a couple of remarks are in order.
First, you are correct that many Christians speak of God primarily by way of what he is NOT rather than what he IS. Classically, this is called (in Latin) the via negativa, the "way of negation." Since humans cannot comprehend God fully, so the thinking goes, most of what they say about him is by way of negation: God is immutable, infinite, etc. The important thing to keep in mind, however, is that this is meaningful language. If I were to say, for example, that you, as a human, were not a bird, or a frog, I would be making a meaningful comment. It wouldn't exhaust who you are, of course, but it would describe something about you.
You slam Christians because you think they can't tell you who or what God is. You won't allow them to say that God is spirit, or that God is good. But don't we all describe people in this way? Don't we all talk of people in terms of their qualities? And don't we all accept such talk as perfectly legitimate?
I could just as easily turn this around on you. What are you? A human? That's just your species, and what is a human, anyway? So what are you? An atheist? That describes your belief system. I want to know what YOU are? James Stillwell? That's your name. I could go on, but you get the idea. Despite all this, no one would say that all talk about you is meaningless.
To put my two cents worth in, I still think Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033-1109) had the best definition of God: God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Is it perfect? No, but it helps.
Peace.
You haven't answered the question. WHAT IS GOD ? and no I am not asking about his character. What is a human is an easy answer because just like everything else (with the information I personally have thus far) is mater of energy. physical. your analogy is flawed! Read my argument again sir.
ReplyDeleteyour also welcome to reach me on skype. if you would like to speak with me. Thanks for your comment.
ReplyDeleteI answered your question. You might not like the answer, but it's there. If you want to be able to say that you've "refuted" the theist's reply to your question, you must deal with St. Anselm's dictum; it has a long and distinguished history as a definitive take on the matter.
ReplyDeleteI could also point out that your argument lacks any persuasive power for the simple reason that you are able to make statements about the Christian God. Even saying that all talk about God is meaningless is to make a meaningful assertion about him--namely, that all God-talk is meaningless! The mere fact that you're able to speak of him, even in the negative, even in your claims that he doesn't exist, is to have some conception of what Christians mean when they say "God."
As to your comment that defining a human is "easy," you need to bone up on your philosophy. This has been a philosophical problem for thousands of years.
Defining a human, moreover, is not as easy as saying it's a matter of energy or physical stuff. This would also apply to deer, frogs, birds, horses, ants, and even rocks! Definitions are supposed to delimit.
I never said all god concepts are meaningless, just the one that do not tell me what god is! if you tell me that god is a physical then that is at least conceptual. Until you tell me what your god is, i'm afraid I personally don't even know what your talking about. 2 until you tell me what god is, I don't know what you mean when you say'' Christian God'' i,m not aware what that is its like random words on a page or oral sounds.Haven't you ever studied the philosophy of language or no? 3 I can make statements about non existence too, but that doesn't mean non existence exists! so why don't you articulate Anslem's argument in a nut shall and if it's valid i'll admit that. I can be wrong how about you?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I guess people share the same emotional experiences and that's what they call experiencing God...but how do we know that isn't a physical manifestation of their delusion ? LOL
ReplyDeleteImagine scientists have discovered a new species and you ask, "What is it?" CASE 1: Someone tells you it's a type of spider and this gives you some idea what they are talking about. CASE 2: You are told it is a type of blah and you don't know what that is and so haven't learned anything about the new species. To say that god is non-material or like a spirit/soul is the same as the blah case -not the spider case. Non-material means nothing to me, while spider means something (I've experienced spiders before). Additionally, the negative case displays a similar ignorance. Saying god isn't an animal, isn't a plant, isn't a virus, isn't whatever else you throw in, gets you nowhere. If the god isn't a member of any known category of life, then describing it by what it isn't is useless. If I say I have something in my hand and it isn't a spoon, then that actually narrows the possibilities of what is in my hand AS LONG AS WHAT'S IN MY HAND IS SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE EXPERIENCED BEFORE (otherwise there are an infinite number of things I haven't experienced that it could be and no progress is made by saying it isn't a spoon).
ReplyDeleteLot to respond to here. First, though, let me ask Simone: who introduced "experiencing God" into this discussion? I've not said anything about it. We're talking about the essence of God, not experiencing God in a personal way. A hard-core deist, who believes in God but believes that he has nothing whatsoever to do with the lives of his creatures, could have the same discussion. As for Christians' experiences of God being physical manifestations of our collective "delusion," who's to say that your belief in atheism, or whatever, isn't just a physical manifestation of an underlying delusion? I'm sure you'll say, in response, that there's more evidence for atheism than theism. Fair enough. What's the evidence? And if theists are wrong and God doesn't exist, why is their belief counted as a delusion? It's an indisputable fact that most of human history has been characterized by some form of God-belief. Are the only non-deluded humans atheists?
ReplyDeleteTo "Unknown": I haven't said that all Christian talk of God is reducible to simple negation: i.e., what God is not rather than what he is. I only asserted that such talk is, in fact, meaningful. I didn't even specify how much such language communicates about God. Christians, however, do say positive things about God. As Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274) described, Christian talk about God is analogical. We speak of him with reference to what we know. He is personal. He is good, just, strong, knowledgeable, and the like. We describe God in terms of his qualities, just like we describe everything else in our experience. If I were to ask you what a spider is, you would speak of its characteristics. In the same way, Christians describe God in terms of his characteristics.
To James: Of course I can be wrong. I'm not saying I have all the answers to your questions. If I've implied something different, I'm very sorry.
I recognize that just because you can say something about non-existence doesn't mean non-existence exists. I'm not saying that just because a Christian can speak meaningfully of his God that therefore his God exists! (Of course, some Christians have said this--it's called the ontological argument. I don't buy it, though.) We can speak meaningfully of unicorns, for example; obviously they don't exist. But we know what's meant when someone utters the word "unicorn." Similarly, what's wrong with a Christian describing God as "the transcendent Creator of all things" or "the Savior of mankind"? Do such statements exhaust who God is? No! And no Christian would say they do. But certainly these are meaningful statements, right? And again, your efforts to debunk Christianity mean that you have at least a rudimentary idea of what Christians are talking about.
Brian Daniels, 1 Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it's a lack of belief in god(s)! 2 you have still failed to communicate what god is. Therefore I'm afraid I still don't know and it sounds like your agnostic as well, I specifically told you talking about character doesn't tell me what god is.2 you said god is spirit, can you tell me what spirit is? I have no conception of spirit and don't know what spirit is. If you say spirit is like wind ,I will ask you how ? If you say that a spirit is like wind because their both invisible ,then you have still failed to tell me what god is. Non existence is in visible. 3 the flaw with your unicorn analogy is that while horses with horns don't exist! Horses and horns do exist and all one is doing is taking the two and saying they are one. All information/input , all concepts are a result of physical experience and sensory imput into our physical brains. Thanks again for your comments.
ReplyDeleteO and by the way as I was trying it type in point 1 atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). In fact it's not even really an ism. When you say that it is your making a straw man argument sorry.
ReplyDeleteIf I want to know what a spider is if I have never seen one calling it dominant-agressive is not very helpful. Telling how many legs it has, that it is a carbon based lifeform, it lives on the surface of planet earth etc are useful statements. God is only defined by His character. That says nothing about what kind of entity He is. Attributes of an entity are just attributes. An "anger" is not a being, an angry person is. The first is nonsense, the second is something that could exist.
ReplyDeleteAs long as He is discribed only by attributes that are not a being themselves God is a reification fallacy.