Help please 'God' a nonsense word?

[spiltteeth]

You know that one guy whose smarter than everyone and intellectually bullies everyone around? Well, I’m a Christian, and everytime I use the word God this guy jumps in saying it’s a nonsense word. Below are some highlights from our conversations, can anyone please help me with how I can respond? Do it for the little guy! Thanks!

Him:
“God” is an empty term since ‘god’ is incomprehensible, so it is impossible to say what ‘he’ is.

If it is possible to say under what circumstances an indicative sentence is either true or false, whether or not we know whether it is true or false, or even whether or not we could actually show that it is true or false, then it has a sense. But, then, to do that would be to repeat that sentence, so we would be no further forward. [This is partly why Wittgenstein said that what can be shown (by the use of language) cannot be said.]
In this case, with putatively indicative sentences about ‘god’, which use (but which do not merely mention) the word “god”, this cannot be done since the word “god” is an empty term, and will forever remain an empty term. That is why any attempt to say what such sentences supposedly tell us cannot work, since they contain an empty term, “god”.

No matter what you do or say, this insurmountable obstacle cannot be overcome, and that is because of the supposedly unique nature of ‘god’ – ‘he’ is incomprehensible, so the word “god” cannot ever cease to be empty.

Quote: Me:
And if so, how do you claim one goes about deciding weather a sentence is true or not?

Him:
In ordinary circumstances, this would be done, for example, by the usual empirical means we have available to us (but there are other ways, too). So, it’s not a matter of who decides, since the latter means are socially determined, not individualistically legislated.

But, once more, with putatively indicative sentences about ‘god’, which use (but which do not merely mention) the word “god”, this cannot be done since the word “god” is an empty term, and will forever remain an empty term.

Hence, we could not even begin to say under what circumstances such sentences could be true or false without also using the empty term “god” in the process.

Once more, we hit another brick wall.

Quote Me :
And do I understand correctly that a term will be empty unless 1)it is comprehensible to me 2) I can tell ‘what’ it is 3) It must be qualified by other terms none of which may be self-referential?

HIM :
I did not say that a word must be comprehensible to you.

And, for what look like ordinary words, there are many things that can decide whether or not any one of them is empty or not.

In this unique case, however, with respect to “god”, the above not apply. In this case, because ‘god’ is inherently incomprehensible to human beings, the word “god” will forever remain empty.

So, no matter what you say, we would still have no idea what you are banging on about when you use the word “god”.

Of course, if you were to deny that ‘god’ is incomprehensible, then you would be referring, not to ‘god’, but to ‘god’, and so you’d be no further forward.

Which is why when you say things like “God is F, G and H…”, we are no further forward, and neither are you, since any such sentence is devoid of sense since it contains an empty word, namely “god”.

‘God’ is essentially incomprehensible to you, so not even you know what you are banging on about when you use the word “god”.

But, it is not possible to say whether Christian theism is true since Christian theism involves the use of indicative sentences about ‘god’, and as such they are devoid of sense, since they contain the empty word “god”.

‘God’ is essentially incomprehensible to you, so not even you know what you are banging on about when you use the word “god”.

This means that:

Whatever you tell us about ‘god’ will involve you saying things like this, “God is F, G and H…”, and since this sentence contains an empty term, namely “god”, we are no further forward.

And it is an empty word, since ‘god’ is essentially incomprehensible to you and to the rest of us.

Once more: There is no way for you out of this hole.

It’s kinda like Ayers ignostisism or theological noncognitism but with some crucial, small differences.
Thanks for the help! God bless!

 

[mathematician]

You know that one guy whose smarter than everyone and intellectually bullies everyone around? Well, I’m a Christian, and everytime I use the word God this guy jumps in saying it’s a nonsense word. Below are some highlights from our conversations, can anyone please help me with how I can respond? Do it for the little guy! Thanks!

It’s kinda like Ayers ignostisism or theological noncognitism but with some crucial, small differences.
Thanks for the help! God bless!

If every time you try to use the word God in a sentence he just comes back with, “God is an empty word… God is an empty word… God is an empty word…” like a mantra there is no real way or arguing with him.

I would just ignore him, and let him carry on humming his hymn to himself. Sooner or later even he will get tired of listening to the melodic sound of his own voice if nobody responds.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Interesting question because at times… I am that guy.

The real problem and solution lies in having a definition that is a true definition, not merely a list of characteristics.

An example;
God == Reality itself or complete Truth.

If you accept that definition for exactly what the word “God” is referring to, then that “guy” has nothing more to complain about and it just so happens that all of the characteristics associated with God still fit.

You can offer other definitions if you prefer, but he loses his argument as soon as you offer one. I have been on both sides of this concern. As soon as you offer a definition that you can defend with the common connotations of God, he stops or argues that your definition can’t be the Bible God. And you must then provide evidence that shows that your definition really is that same God.

It is merely an issue of having definition, fore no conversation can ever make sense until you agree on the definitions of the words being used.

 

[adrift]

God" is an empty term since ‘god’ is incomprehensible, so it is impossible to say what ‘he’ is.

This sentence is a false premise an rather silly. There are many facets of God that we do not know it does not follow that we do not know what HE is. He has revealed much to us. See the Catechism.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi spiltteeth,

with putatively indicative sentences about ‘god’, which use (but which do not merely mention) the word “god”, this cannot be done since the word “god” is an empty term, and will forever remain an empty term.

But, it is not possible to say whether Christian theism is true since Christian theism involves the use of indicative sentences about ‘god’, and as such they are devoid of sense, since they contain the empty word “god”.

Whatever you tell us about ‘god’ will involve you saying things like this, “God is F, G and H…”, and since this sentence contains an empty term, namely “god”, we are no further forward.

Notice that each of these statements is an instance of question-begging. He assumes the conclusion that “God” is a meaningless term in support of the premise that “God” is an empty term, without any referent.

You could start by providing some counter-examples. “A tree is . . .” If he doesn’t accept your definition of God because it uses the term “God” in the proposition, then nothing at all can be defined. You’re quite right that he is seemingly appealing to A.J. Ayer’s verification principle, so you could also point out the contradiction in verificationism that so many epistemologists and linguists have noted - namely, that verificationism is itself incapable of being verified.

If he asks for a definition of “God”, you could also start out small. “God is the eternal ordering principle of the universe” is both meaningful and non-trivial, but it will also be a sound starting point.

 

[prodigalson12]

Tell him that God is a term we use when it comes to being able to address our Lord. It’s relative to how we use mathematical symbols to represent a formula, so instead of writing down the entire formula, it’s replaced with a symbol, that the meaning behind it is what matters, not the label.

 

[liquidpele]

Hmm, while I technically agree with him that the word is meaningless until a definition is agreed upon for discussion, he sounds pretty annoying. Every time he says it’s incomprehensible you should just say “So you’re saying it’s beyond your understanding?” implying that he’s too stupid to figure it out

 

[adrift]

Hmm, while I technically agree with him that the word is meaningless until a definition is agreed upon for discussion, he sounds pretty annoying. Every time he says it’s incomprehensible you should just say “So you’re saying it’s beyond your understanding?” implying that he’s too stupid to figure it out

 

[Ghosty]

I would point out that a term doesn’t need to be comprehensible in order to have meaning. We can’t comprehend “infinity”, but it’s not an empty term by any means. When you really get down to it, we can’t even comprehend “tree” or “water”; we have certain aspects of these things that we’re familiar with, and we are referring to real things, but we don’t comprehend them.

In short, we can say things about God, and use the term God to refer to this being we are speaking of, without comprehending that being, or even comprehending everything that is covered in the term “God”.

This is actually a very, very old point, and is at the heart of all Apostolic Christian theology. It’s referred to as “apophatic knowledge”, or the “knowledge of unknowing”. It refers not only to God, but to concepts such as “infinity” (literally “not finite”, or “eternity” literally “not time”). When such terms are used we are referring to a “nothing”, an absence of something, and yet we are defining real things.

Peace and God bless!

 

[itinerant1]

This sentence is a false premise an rather silly. There are many facets of God that we do not know it does not follow that we do not know what HE is. He has revealed much to us. See the Catechism.

While the term God is not a nonsense or empty, there is a bit of truth in saying that God is incomprehensible and that we cannot know what he is. Anyone who has read the Cloud of Unknowing will understand this.

We say, as it says in the NT, “God is a spirit”. But we have no direct experience of what a spirit is. All of our knowledge begins in the physical realm, with the senses. We begin to define spirit by saying what it is not. It is not physical. It is not in a place. It is not corruptible. And so on. We say God is infinite. What is meant by “infinite?” We begin by saying what it is not. It is not finite. It is not limited. And so on. We say God had no beginning. We have no experience with something that has no beginning. Everything in nature had a beginning.

We say God is love itself. We have no experience with anything whose essence is identical with love. We experience human love, which is limited and imperfect, and conceptually remove those limitation and attribute to God perfect love. But what is perfect, infinite love?

All of our conceptual knowledge of God is a negative way of knowing, via negativa. But this negative way of knowing gives us positive yet very limited knowledge of God’s nature. Our knowledge of God is strictly analogical. It is an analogical way of knowing. We know by analogies with creation, the things in our experience.

Analogical knowledge is seeing through a glass, very darkly. We cannot directly know what God is because we have no experience or direct apprehension of his essence. This is a gap as wide as the difference between the finite and the infinite.

For all of the research and theorizing done in physics, scientists still have not a clue what electricity really is. So, we should be cautious when we say we know what God is. Our knowledge is only analogical, which also means that the concept of God is far from being an empty or meaningless concept. In addition, God has Revealed many things about himself that are above human reason’s ability to discover. But we understand what is Revealed only according to our finite minds.

True mystical experience, for example, St. Theresa of Avila’s visions, is another and higher way of knowing or experiencing God than is analogical knowledge. We sometimes forget there are different ways of knowing God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You know that one guy whose smarter than everyone and intellectually bullies everyone around? Well, I’m a Christian, and everytime I use the word God this guy jumps in saying it’s a nonsense word. Below are some highlights from our conversations, can anyone please help me with how I can respond? Do it for the little guy! Thanks!

It’s kinda like Ayers ignostisism or theological noncognitism but with some crucial, small differences.
Thanks for the help! God bless!

he isnt saying anything actually. he is attempting to make the implicit argument that G-d is incomprehesible because there is no empirical evidence of G-d. essentially G-d is incomprehensible because we cant see Him.

my first approach might be to ask what then is comprehensible about an electron. after all we cant see it, therefore we dont know if it exists, and it is utterly inchomprehensible. yet even a child chomprehends what an electron is. if he objects that an electron is known from associated phenomenon, tell him that is also how we know about G-d. when he says we can know is an electron by mathematical or some other means, point out that there is no way to know its not a fairy playing a practical joke.

this is a tuqouqe argument and should work using any non-visible phenomenon that your comfortable with.

you might also just be a smart alec and point out you cant understand any sentence he says for the same reason

when he objects that we can measure and study its effects, you say thats how we know about G-d.

 

[Touchstone]

You know that one guy whose smarter than everyone and intellectually bullies everyone around? Well, I’m a Christian, and everytime I use the word God this guy jumps in saying it’s a nonsense word. Below are some highlights from our conversations, can anyone please help me with how I can respond? Do it for the little guy! Thanks!

It’s kinda like Ayers ignostisism or theological noncognitism but with some crucial, small differences.
Thanks for the help! God bless!

One thing that helps is to understand the contexts in which meaning obtains in any conversation. A quick example in developing meaningful concepts that coherent together in the abstract, but do not pertain to the real world:

**Gak: **A koru that has fleebs.
Fleeb: Element produced by a koru.
Koru: An entity that can produces fleebs or soams
Soam: Element produced by a koru

Now, I can produce meaningful statements with our new mini-lexicon:

A): This koru does not have fleebs.
B): The Gak also has soams.
C): The koru was once a gak.

It’s gibberish without the lexicon, but now these statements have meaning in the context of that lexicon.

It’s important to note, though, that statements A) - C) are NOT meaningful statements about the real world. None of the referents and entities described have semantic grounds in real world concepts. “This Gak also has soams” may be true or false in some abstract sense, but it’s not a meaningful proposition about the world around us.

That’s where “God” becomes problematic. It is a word rich in meaning in “private lexicons”, the nomenclature of various religions and theologies, but it’s problematic to establish “God” as a meaningful statement about the real world, in the same way that saying “That koru is fleebish” is meaningful to us, but not as a statement about the real world. Many people of course believe God is an actual entity of some sort in the real world, but that’s where it gets dicey; having to account for that in terms of concepts grounded in the real world is problematic. It’s not at all like talking about a “tree”, in other words. To people who don’t share these private lexicons, like we all now embrace the “meaning of koru”, using “God” in statements about the real world imparts no more real world meaning than “fleebish” would to someone who hasn’t read this post.

So, it’s seems rather clumsy of your smartypants here to not grasp this, if he doesn’t grasp it. And even if “God” is an meaningless statement about the real world, that would be a technical point – if the guy has a clue, he’s well aware that religious people use this term regularly, despite and because of its dubious connection to concepts ground in reality that we can call nominally objective – shared by all of us, like the concept of “tree”.

Tsk, tsk, for him, then. But there is a legitimate admonition in there, nonetheless. Christians and other religious people are often quite comfortable deploying terms which are not connectable to real world concepts, yet use them as if they are connected. Heck, atheists do it, too, I’m sure. Religion is just an easy way to make it happen as part of everyday conversation.

-TS

 

[James_S_Saint]

One thing that helps is to understand the contexts in which meaning obtains in any conversation. A quick example in developing meaningful concepts that coherent together in the abstract, but do not pertain to the real world:

Exactly and a very good explanation.

But let’s not forget that in “reality”, God still happens to have an actual association. The issue is merely one of comprehending the exact nature of that association. Until then, “God” is merely a category nomenclature for the something unknown with the general “omnimax” properties and the ability to create existence.

For those who want to know of the Biblical God, the task is to learn the lexicon of an ancient culture.

 

[James_S_Saint]

you might also just be a smart alec and point out you cant understand any sentence he says for the same reason

{snicker}

 

[AnAtheist]

The word “god” has indogerman origins and means “a higher being, called by charms” (see the dictionary by the Grimm brothers).

 

[James_S_Saint]

The word “god” has indogerman origins and means “a higher being, called by charms” (see the dictionary by the Grimm brothers).

If you are going there, then…

The word “god” is formed by the phonetics “ghe-o-odd”. It specifically refers to “the completed whole spirit”. It is formed in like manner to the word “Jihad” although having entirely different use.

The sound “ghe” in the ancient common tongue Anglish, now called English, referred to motion (spirit), as in “go”. The word “ghost”, for example, refers to the spirit (motion) of the host.

The “odd” referred, much as it does now to a singular, stand alone item (usually a soul), complete to itself.

In ancient Hebrew the word “Elohim” means exactly the same thing and its components are in themselves cognitive words; “El”, “o”, “ha”, and “him”/“hymn”.

 

[spiltteeth]

I think I figured out an answer, here’s our recent conversation :

I assume you mean because of his unique ontological status and that, as Issaih said, (A) God is unlike anything in the world.
Well, this is true in an important sense - nothing is his match or equal. But it must be clarified precisely, for (A) is ambiguous between

A1) God is not completely like anything in the world
and
A2) God is completely unlike everything in the world.

The difference is like that between

B1) God does not share ALL properties with anything else
and
B2) God does not share ANY properties with anything else.

Only A2 and B2 are such that their truth would prevent any rational discourse about God. But A2 could only be true id B2 were true, and B2 is impossible.
If God and worldly things could share NO properties in common, due to their difference in ontological status, then they would have to share at least one property in common :
P) The very property of having properties not shared by some being with a very different ontological status.
So, the claim is only true if it is false, so its impossible to be true.

Likewise :

TP) No human concepts could apply to God, then at least ONE human concept would HAVE to apply to him, namley,

C) The concept of being such as to escape characterization by human concepts,
from which it follows that TP) can’t be true, so some human concepts must apply to God.

HIM :Quote:
I deny it is an a priori truth, and I’d like to see your proof that it is

ME:
I say it can be. There are basic beliefs from which all inferential beliefs must reasonable come from. Basic beliefs, I think, can reasonable include beliefs that are self-evident (2+2=4), evident to the senses (you go outside and the sky is blue), incorrigible (they have to be true - like, that mountain looks scary to me), memory beliefs, beliefs about the past, belief in an external world and other minds, beliefs in the testimony of others, etc…
In short, all the beliefs that are produced by our cognitive faculties in the appropriate circumstances. So ‘there is a tree’ is true only in the appropriate circumstances, namely, that there’s a tree around, otherwise it’s a hallucination. Included in here properly can be belief in God as I’ve explained above (as long as it can be maintained in regards to other reasonable beliefs, so if there’s too much evil in the world, then you couldn’t reasonable believe in a good God etc). Otherwise you’d be describing a computer, not an actual human.
If you shortened the above criteria, it would be reasonable to believe the following are true, which is silly,

1. That the universe popped into existence 5 minutes ago with memory traces intact
2. How do you know other people are not figments of yr mind?
3. How do you know those other people are persons? - that they have a mind? - A mental construct/inner life similar to yr own (instead of simply giving automatic responses that give the appearance of mind)
4. Memory. I believe it is reasonable to believe that I had oatmeal for breakfast yesterday (I did) however I cannot scientifically validate this claim (no witnesses, receipts, empty boxes etc) therefore is this an unreasonable belief?

The theist has a right to take the existence of God for granted and go on from there in his philosophical work- just as others take for granted the existence of the past, say, or of other persons, or the basic claims of contemporary physics.
God, said Calvin, has implanted in humankind a tendency or nisus or disposition to believe in him:
“There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity.” This we take to beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty . . . Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household, that could do without religion, there lies in this a tacit confession of a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all.
Calvin’s claim, then, is that God has so created us that we have by nature a strong tendency or inclination or disposition towards belief in him.
Although this disposition to believe in God has been in part smothered or suppressed by sin, it is nevertheless universally present. And it is triggered or actuated by widely realized conditions
Calvin says suggests that one who accedes to this tendency and in these circumstances accepts the belief that God has created the world-perhaps upon beholding the starry heavens, or the splendid majesty of the mountains, or the intricate, articulate beauty of a tiny flower-is quite as rational and quite as justified as one who believes that he sees a tree upon having that characteristic being-appeared-to-treely kind of experience.
A true belief constitutes knowledge if it is produced by a reliable belief producing mechanism.
If the theist thinks God has created us with the sensus divinitatis Calvin speaks of, he will hold that indeed there is a reliable belief producing mechanism that produces theistic belief; he will thus hold that we know that God exists. One who follows Calvin here will also hold that a capacity to apprehend God’s existence is as much part of our natural noetic or intellectual equipment as is the capacity to apprehend truths of logic, perceptual truths, truths about the past, and truths about other minds. Belief in the existence of God is then in the same boat as belief in truths of logic, other minds, the past, and perceptual objects; in each case God has so constructed us that in the right circumstances we acquire the belief in question. But then the belief that there is such a person as God is as much among the deliverances of our natural noetic faculties as are those other beliefs. Hence we know that there is such a person as God, and don’t merely believe it; and it isn’t by faith that we apprehend the existence of God, but by reason; and this whether or not any of the classical theistic arguments is successful.
Also, Like William Lane Craig I maintains that one knows that Christianity is true “by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit.” By a self-authenticating experience of the Holy Spirit, Craig means an experience that is veridical and unmistakable for “him who has it” although it is "not necessarily irresistible or indubitable " Such an experience does not function, he says, as a premise in an argument from religious experience to the existence of God. Although arguments and evidence may be used to support a believer’s faith, they are never the basis of that faith. Rather, the basis is the immediate experience of God himself. Craig maintains, however, that “in certain contexts” this experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of basic truths of the Christian religion such as “Christ lives in me” and “I am condemned by God.”

THANKS FOR ALL THE HELP!

 

[survive]

We can’t comprehend physics, life, consciousness or individuality, and we can’t comprehend our existence as a result, yet we know we exist and we know whom we mean when we mention ourselves.
If etymology matters, “God” seems to come from PIE roots meaning “to call, shout, summon, invoke”, “to worship or revere”, “to cry out, call”, “to be able, to have power”, and/or “to have religious fear or awe, also, rejoice”, among similar possibilities in the gal-ghes spectrum of root words (American Heritage Dictionary).
YHWH seems to mean “self-existent One, uncreated, I Am, He Who Is, Ultimate Reality, Ground of Being” , or something like it, and is a sacred Name. Substitutes include God (capitalization to indicate the One True God rather than one of many “gods”), Lord (Owner, One in charge), Father (Creator, Protector, Provider), Almighty (self-explanatory), and many other terms, but let’s say God.