A Teleological Argument

[Gorgias]

No woman would be in the position to accept or reject a “ marriage proposition ” if the guy just “thinks it”.

Nice try. A ‘marriage proposition’ isn’t the same as a mathematical or logical proposition. But it was a good attempt at a straw man, nevertheless.

The aim of languages is to have information exchange. The thoughts are TRANSLATED into linguistic symbols and presented as SENTENCES - thereby becoming PROPOSITIONS .

With this assertion, you acknowledge the error of your argument. One cannot exchange information that doesn’t already exist.

I have no idea what or whom are you talking about. Your proposition has no meaning for me.

Google is your friend.

 

[IWantGod]

Google is your friend.

What are you doing up at this time.

 

[Sophia]

Nice try. A ‘marriage proposition’ isn’t the same as a mathematical or logical proposition.

Nonsense. I am talking about any and all propositions - about mathematics, or logic, or marriage, or agriculture or industry, or politics… or anything else. A thought is not a proposition. A sentence is one - but only if it is uttered during a conversation and if it is meaningful for the person who hears or reads it. And the meaning of the propositions is contingent upon the meaning of the symbols and, of course the proper usage of the rules of the grammar. Even in that case the proposition can be meaningless, like “the message was written on the reverse side of the Mobius strip” or “God is love”.

With this assertion, you acknowledge the error of your argument. One cannot exchange information that doesn’t already exist.

Baloney. The information is not the same as a proposition. The information must be presented in the proper format to BECOME a proposition. I see that you have no idea what the word “proposition” MEANS.

Google is your friend.

I need no new “friends” and not interested in a wild goose chase. If you wish to say something, say it. I did present quite a few propositions about “testing” anyone, God, or otherwise. If you cannot make a response, just come clean. I have no problem to say that your sentences or propositions are meaningless to me.

I have to give you one “praise”, however. You are very good at NOT making a conversation, just making nonsensical quasi-replies. Of course I suspect that you are already aware of this fact. Maybe you do, because you drop the “unpleasant” propositions like a hot potato.

Do you understand these propositions?

1. Propositions are uttered in a communication channel during a conversation.
2. A proposition is a grammatically correct sentence uttered in a conversation.
3. The meaning of a proposition is contingent upon the meaning of the symbols and the correct usage of the rules of grammar.
4. The meaning of a symbol or a sentence is whatever the person understands during the conversation.

If you don’t understand them, you need to study ---- a LOT! Or ask for clarification.

 

[Gorgias]

A thought is not a proposition. A sentence is one - but only if it is uttered during a conversation and if it is meaningful for the person who hears or reads it.

I’ll lead with the beginning of the Wiki article on the term ‘proposition’. (Not because Wiki is gospel, but just to show you that the world doesn’t agree with your take here.) I’ve underlined the parts that disagree with your rather strident unilaterally-declared definition:

The term proposition has a broad use in contemporary analytic philosophy. It is used to refer to some or all of the following: the primary bearers of truth-value, the objects of belief and other “propositional attitudes” (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.), the referents of that-clauses, and the meanings of declarative sentences. Propositions are the sharable objects of attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity

See? The statement isn’t the proposition – it’s the vehicle through which the proposition is communicated! The proposition itself has meaning and bears truth.

Let’s move on to the next point. You’ve lost this one.

I see that you have no idea what the word “proposition” MEANS .

Nah, not at all. It’s just that, yet again, I disagree with Sophiastry. Next topic?

You are very good at NOT making a conversation, just making nonsensical quasi-replies.

Just replying in kind, buddy.

 

[Sophia]

See? The statement isn’t the proposition – it’s the vehicle through which the proposition is communicated! The proposition itself has meaning and bears truth.

Nonsense. Just like if you would say: “A coat is not a garment, it is how a garment manifests itself.” There is no proposition outside the language. And there is no meaning outside the mind of the person who participates in a communication. But I guess that is beyond your comprehension.

Let’s go to other sources, just for the fun of it. Maybe you will learn something.

Oxford:
A statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.
A statement that expresses a concept that can be true or false.
A formal statement of a theorem or problem, typically including the demonstration.

Webster:
an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false

Dictionary:
a statement in which something is affirmed or denied, so that it can therefore be significantly characterized as either true or false.
a formal statement of either a truth to be demonstrated or an operation to be performed; a theorem or a problem.

And even you quoted definition refers to “the meanings of declarative sentences”.

Every one of them contains the term: “statement” or “sentence”. There is no proposition without a linguistic expression. Looks like you are a follower of Plato, who believed that there are abstract and perfect “things” and the actual objects are just imperfect manifestation of them. I wonder what the “perfect” excrement would be of which an “actual pile of dung” is just an imperfect approximation.

Of course it could be something like an “indecent proposition”, but that happens in a sexual context, not in philosophy.

Just replying in kind, buddy.

Yes… YOUR kind. Definitely not MY kind.