Theological Noncognitivism - Re: Re: Why Atheism?

[EdwinMcCravy1]

You're not a 'seasoned' theological noncognitivist "TN". You're an atheist. No true TN would utter the sound "disprove the existence of God" as you do very early on. No true TN would even write or utter "God" outside of quotation marks -- or outside of implied quotation marks if spoken-- and then only to refer to the three alphabet letters consisting of capital "G", lower case "o", and lower case "d" written in a row in that order, by those who are not TNs. .

[XOmniverse]

@EdwinMcCravy1 Lol.

[jimpsky]

TNC=god is not defined as a rational thing

It is a mistake to draw any conclusions from TNC.

It simply states 1 divided by zero = undefined. Nothing further can be said about undefined.

To say it makes for strong atheism is a whopper with double cheese (blunder). TNC destroys the term atheism as atheism is based on god being defined.

[XOmniverse]

@Sofiaaamichelle No substance to your comment; just a bunch of empty assertions and insults.

[ikantianthink]

To help you a little, meaning, argued by many, is given by the assignment of a truth-value to a given proposition. For example, 1 + 1 = 2 is a statement that has meaning; but x + y = z is a statement that does not have meaning. Thus, the latter does not have meaning, because it is not true or false.

Also, for the record, Baruch Spinoza held the view that God is everywhere - it's not a silly claim at all. Actually, it's extremely complex. I suggest you read up on Spinoza's argument for monism.

[ikantianthink]

Wow...you have just butchered a series of views including non-cognitivism. Please make the effort to rigorously study the views you are advocating before you advocate them publicly. That is, because you are confused and you are confusing everyone else as well.

[OnlyHereNow]

I didn't know what "ignosticism" or "theological noncognitvism" was until just a couple of days ago when I ran across it on wikipedia. But I have been arguing with my friends from this position for a long time. I always say the word "god" is a nonsense word along with any concept that refers to it. To have any meaningful discourse about "god" you must define it, but how can you define something that is supposed to be infinite? Therefore there is no meaningful approach to the subject of "god".

[junior00bacon00chee]

YES.

the word doesn't point to anything. no one can say what it means for "god" to "exist" so there's no argument to even be had, no clear hypothesis to assess.

great video.

[HugNow]

"brief proof of strong atheism"

You have no idea what a "proof" is. All you have "proven" is that you are agnostic.

[HugNow]

@XOmniverse no, actually the person that resorts to name calling since he has no logical debate, that is the person who is the problem

[SPACKlick]

@HugNow No, he has shown he is Ignostic. Learn your terms.

[smikro1]

Thanks for the plug. 8-)

Ghs

[smikro1]

Thanks for the plug. 8-)

Ghs

[Xandirfan]

You were funny in this video Shawn xD!

[rhyfelur]

So If I worship the Sun as my God, I could make a pretty good case for its existence.

[rhyfelur]

Yes I see your point, I mentioned the Sun because people actually have whorshiped it as a God. But of course if you start claiming that a rock is god it becomes absurd.

But I still think my point about the difference between and omni-potent God and a God that is to some degree responsible for us being here ( ie: a race of higher develped beings) is valid. If humans were "seeded" here by higher beings, we might view them as God. Both could fit comfortably under the deffinition of God.

[rhyfelur]

I think you are right about the question of Gods existence being dependent on how you define God.

If I define God as the singular most powerful force in the universe, an all powerful, all knowing being, then you could label me an Atheist because I dont beleive in that God.

If I define him as "The ( A ) Creator" or even just a force that is responsible for my being here, then I would be probably a weak Agnostic because I dont discount that possability at all.

[smikro1]

What can I say? This is an excellent presentation. (I find that I often agree with what George H. Smith has written.)

Ghs

[mitchmatchguitar]

What causes the problem is, I think, subjectivity. You can't define anything in the world, you needn't bother trying it. After all, everyone forms his or her own idea of, for example, the expression 'chair'. What I just typed here, doesn't even make sense, cause all the words are subjective. 'God' is subjective, 'to exist' is subjective, etc. In this case, you only satisfy yourself that 'God' exists or that 'He doesn't'. So why convince someone else? Why follow a Bible full of subjective words?

[theosophers]

Another point. Jews define God as 'mercy and loving kindness'. You can complain that mercy and loving kindness don't exist, but that is how God has been defined.

[XOmniverse]

The burden of proof is on them to explain why emotions and attitudes of individuals somehow emerge into an omnipotent being that transcends normal existence.

[theosophers]

No. God is discoverable. You must discover God. Nobody can make the discovery for you.

[XOmniverse]

So unlike, say, biology, where someone can find the information and then provide the evidence to other people, you can't do that with God? Why not?

[theosophers]

There is much which has been written about God. However, you must find God yourself. I think you understand what i am telling you and you are begging the question...

[XOmniverse]

By all means, point in the direction of empirical evidence of God and I will walk.

But most people who say "you must discover God" mean you must have some random emotional experience.

[xbry89x]

There is a biological (and on the smaller scale, chemical) explanation for your "discovery of God." You have these feelings for a reason, and that reason is called euphoria. This is caused by chemical reactions in your body, and the same thing happens when you, for example, hear an emotional moving song.

[theosophers]

Your analysis is pure sophistry...

[theosophers]

By the way. I don't know what you have been reading but Ayne Rand is not an epistemologist.

[XOmniverse]

So Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology wasn't Ayn Rand being an epistemologist?

[theosophers]

An epistemologist is one who has been educated in the philosophy of epistemology. Ayne was educated as a philosopher of any kind. Philosophers do not recognize her or her objectivism. She was not a philosopher.

[XOmniverse]

Isn't that an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy?

[theosophers]

I think you will find somewhere in Ayne Rands writings that she agreed with the criticism of philosophers that her objectivisim was not rigorous enough to be held as true philosophy.

[XOmniverse]

Considering her ego, I really doubt it.

[theosophers]

Have you read about Qualia?

[XOmniverse]

You mean Aristotelian epistemology? Only a little. It seems intrinsicist to me; I see no evidence that a cat contains "catness" apart from my mind.

[theosophers]

No, qualia are the properties of sensations within consciousness. For instance, is red a substance apart from all of its external sources? There is a good article on wikipedia.

[theosophers]

You have said:

"Nothing called God exists."

The Jews say it another way. Nothing is God, no thing is God.

"No thing" is the highest aspect of God.

[XOmniverse]

To regard nothing as a thing is to make a cognition error in which one abandons the fundamental definition of nothing; which is that it is the absence of anything.

[theosophers]

"To regard nothing as a thing is to make a cognition error ..."

God in not a thing, so there is no error.

[theosophers]

Sorry about the typo...

God is not a thing.

[XOmniverse]

If it is not a thing then it does not exist. All thing means is an existent.

[theosophers]

A noun is a person place or thing. You aren't saying that persons and places do not exist are you?

[XOmniverse]

Nouns don't exist in a concrete sense. Noun is an abstract concept that refers to language. The word 'chair' exists as a component of language; the concept contained in the definition refers to a set of objects in reality with specific characteristics. This does not mean that the word chair and chairs themselves are the same thing.

[theosophers]

The question asked was about persons and places.

I was assuming that you would not place person or place as simply a thing. Being would mean, that which exists, but I don't believe 'thing' would be the best substitute for the word 'being'.

[XOmniverse]

What does any of this have to do with the fact that something can't BE nothing. If it is SOMETHING, then it isn't NOTHING. Nothing means "NO THING."

[fungku777]

That concept of "God is No Thing" is sort of like a koan in Zen Buddhism. Students of Western Mystery traditions use this Ancient Hebrew "koan" as a means of meditation.

It is not meant to be concrete or to assert the existence of God. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, it is meant to draw the student away from a definition of such.

[enterthepigger]

C'mon theosophers, XOmniverse is obviously using an all encompassing definition of "thing" rather than the one defined in opposition to people and places. In fact, he explicitly said that he was just using it to denote anything that exists.

[opinionhead444]

By the way, thank you for the response. I enjoyed your video. It made me smarter.

[opinionhead444]

I can't refute your proof of strong atheism, but I ask you this: if a person holds a metaphysical position on what God is divergent of yours show a lack of consensus between you and that person on that metaphysical issue?

I take that lack of consensus to all of human individuals. That argument really underlies my agnosticism. Is that a fallacious position?

[XOmniverse]

As long as things are defined clearly in advance, I don't really see it as a problem.

If the theist explains what his conception of God is, then I can either demonstrate why it is not rational, or demonstrate that it is clearly not what most people mean by God.

I've had some people try to define god as "existence itself," but completely fail to explain why existence would have a personality or demand obedience.

[EdwinMcCravy]

"The existence of God" and "the nonexistence of God" are both meaningless sounds made with the mouth and vocal cords. There is no reason to suspect in the least that the sound "God" refers to anything that can be thought of. The sound "God" is like the sound "Fod" and the sound "Zod" in that none of those three sounds "God", "Fod", or "Zod" refers to anything anybody can think of.

Edwin

[Avernoz]

What would you call someone who believed in this? A theological noncognitivist?

[XOmniverse]

Atheist will do.

[BobTheViking24]

In response, I have to say that I disagree that the concepts mentioned are actually incoherent. First I must make clear, though, that I don't have an axe to grind here; I'm not a theist in the traditional sense. I reject such notions on other grounds.

To start with, the main problem with your argument is that it is essentially a straw man. You present your own vague definitions for omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence without responding to any particular theistic proposals for the terms.

[XOmniverse]

I have yet to encounter a theist who is willing to give a non-vague understanding of any of those things. That's kind of what I am getting at.

[BobTheViking24]

Then I would recommend reading the writings of more theologians and philosophers of religion. Your average church-goer's God is quite clearly incoherent. There is no real logical content to the God of many Evangelical preachers. If you want non-vague understandings, you should look at the writings of long-dead men like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, as well as those of modern thinkers like Alvin Plantinga.

[BobTheViking24]

A theist will point out, for instance, that omnipresence, correctly understood, is an articulation of God's non-spatial nature. All the major attributes can be negatively defined in some way.

Of course, the noncognitivist will jump on this chance, claiming that since they are all negatively defined, God lacks a positive definition (logically equivalent) and God therefore is undefined. One potential theistic response might be that every attribute is potentially negatively defined.

[BobTheViking24]

This will not hold for omnipresence, but definitely can for omnipotence and omniscience. Omnipotence is the ability to perform all actions logically possible, and omniscience having justified belief in every true proposition. These are explicitly positive definitions, and are clearly coherent.

Of course, there are notions of God which do not fall prey to this kind of criticism. For instance, Paul Tillich defines God as the "Ground of Being."

[Hatchyack]

The problem is, omnipotence, omniscience, and all these other attributes are secondary (at best, they are also often relational and as you said, negative) and not primary. They give us no reference point, which is why theistic-talk is meaningless.

[AnlytcPhil]

"God" with a capital "G" is a meaningless rows of alphabet letters, and not really even a word. Therefore you should not speak it or write it as though it were. Ignostics (theological noncognitivists) are at odds with theists, atheists and agnostics, all three of whom have FAITH, yes FAITH, that "God" is a meaningful word. But there is no reason to even suspect that the row of letters "God" has a think-of-able referent.

Edwin

[Hatchyack]

Agreed. I don't consider myself a theist, atheist, or agnostic. No one has ever been able to give me a primary attribute as a reference, so I can't even begin to decide whether "God" is logical (what atheists argue against), whether there is evidence for or against "God" (what agnostics argue against), and so on.

[Johnnsen]

You would think waaay different about it if you would live in germany I think.

[XOmniverse]

Why would living in Germany make me think different about atheism?

[theskepticantidote]

Why did you not post this as a response to my video?

Why atheism

[mcredsox16]

you're one fuckin ugly ginger

[Sealevan]

lol pogo

[Johnnsen]

lol you fail at life

[livythecanuck]

Barrack Obama for president!!!!

lol

[XOmniverse]

That was random.

[livythecanuck]

I am a random gal ;)

[daPawlak]

God is consiedered to be transcend to universe, so in a way he can be everywhere (like Platos concept of beauty- is in every object in universe, just in different amount). And then, since he is transcend to univerese he can know everything (only way to fully understad something is to percive it from outside). Thou you made good point about couse and effect, but f.e. Christians believe in free will, so 'their' universe don't need couse and effect relations.

[Chrisnoscrub047]

Huh?

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Something that transcends the universe doesn't exist, by definition.

[daPawlak]

Well that's whole different subject.

But God (and most of other gods) is considered to be such, so if you want to 'disprove' him you should disprove f.e. concept of trascendesy. Cos is something would be transceendent to universe arguments used in video would be faulty.

In short: if you want to talk philosophy, stick to it rules.

[daPawlak]

And about this definition thing, if something creates universe than it has to be transcendent to its creation. Seems to be a paradox, but if universe would be deity+all_the_rest_of_things_t­hatwe_call_univ than this paradox would be turned in to irrelevant naming mistake (insted of "whole universe without God" simply "universe")

[legendre007]

I agree w/ U about George H. Smith's *Atheism: The Case Against God*. It puts Dawkins, Hitchens, & Harris to shame. Dawkins & Dan Dennett both assume that Existence has to have a First Cause. Unlike today's 4 most popular atheist authors, Smith understands the irrationality of assuming that there was some Time before Time existed.

[Ramitaylor]

All you've done is take a couple of vague statments about God: "He's everywhere," "he knows everything," point out that they are vague, and thereby "prove" that no being descriptable by such vague statements could exist. Come on. You're a smart guy.

[TheSockWithNoName]

Have you ever heard of "pantheism"?

It's a well-known, well-defined concept of "god" (and one in which "god" exists as a tautology).

So there it goes. There's at least one tangible thing that can be called "god".

If you choose to rule out this definition -- well, that's your prerogative, but it demonstrates that you DO have at least a personal conception of what god is NOT, thus proving that you have SOME conception of "god", which in turn proves you're not really a non-cognitivist.

[TheSockWithNoName]

Non-cognitivism entails agnosticism, because it is undefined regarding the existence of "god".

Do you think "zippedy-doodas" exist? Do you think "zippedy-doodas" do NOT exist? There's way do decide if no definition for "zippedy doodas" is given. It would be irrational to believe in either the existence or inexistence of something you didn't even define.

Non-cognitivsm = indefinition. It doesn't mix, let alone prove, Atheism. Atheism requires a definition of "god" to even begin with.

[TheSockWithNoName]

*There's NO way TO decide if no definition for "zippedy doodas" is given.

[Kbiomech]

I agree with your argument up to a point, and that point is this:"Atheism requires a definition of "god" to even begin with. "

This is false. I don't think it deliberate, but this was a non sequitur on your part. It does not follow from your chain of logic.

Atheism simply means without belief in god. Strong atheism could be considered a positive belief "There is no god", but in a general sense, atheism needs no definitional god to be a valid concept.

[Kbiomech]

I'm a soft atheist. I do not believe AT ALL in deistic/theistic religions. Nor do I actively believe in a god. But the concept of a first cause, or perhaps even more evolved beings having interfered with our development, is not beyond the realm of probability. But I am still an atheist rather than agnostic because I have NO beliefs regarding a deity, positive or negative. Merely some theories that I'm entertaining.

[TheSockWithNoName]

"I'm a soft atheist. I do not believe AT ALL in deistic/theistic religions. Nor do I actively believe in a god."

I don't believe in myths neither, but that doesn't make me an atheist, because I don't define "God" as any of the literal mythological characters that have been called by that name, like YHWH, or Zeus, &c.

The thing is, one who calls himself an "atheist" DOES have a concept of "God" -- in your case, "god" refers to the literal description of mythological characters.

[TheSockWithNoName]

"Atheism simply means without belief in god."

Hold it right there.

This "without believe" BS is a fallacy that atheists use when they want to make their believe "bullet-proof".

This "without believe belief" is just a semantic trick to cloak the stronger claim of inexistence.

You either believe in god's existence (theism), inexistence (atheism) or you have an undefined stance (agnosticism).

If you are "without believe" of either existence or inexistence, you're agnostic, not atheist.

[TheSockWithNoName]

*without belief :-P

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

**"You either believe..."

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, weak atheism might be described as agnosticism with disbelief. Likewise, agnostic theism is agnosticism with belief. Your proposed rules do not correspond to reality.

[TheSockWithNoName]

"Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive."

I don't this "agnostic atheism" BS. Atheism is not believing in god's existence, PERIOD.

The degree of certainty is irrelevant. To me, it seems like another atheistic fallacious tactic to make his belief appear more "rational": "oh, I believe, but I'm not SURE..."

"Your proposed rules do not correspond to reality."

LOL! Look who's talking about "corresponding to reality"! A deluded anarchist zealot!

Oh, the unintentional irony! ^_^

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

**"I don't this "agnostic atheism" BS. Atheism is not believing in god's existence, PERIOD."

Oh, if only you could assert things and make them true. But you can't.

**"LOL! Look who's talking about "corresponding to reality"! A deluded anarchist zealot!"

You seem rather angry (even overzealous?). I'm sorry whatever personal problems you're experiencing have led you to berate people online with your staggering ignorance of simple concepts, but you're no less wrong for it.

[TheSockWithNoName]

"You seem rather angry (even overzealous?). I'm sorry whatever personal problems you're experiencing have led you to berate people online with your staggering ignorance of simple concepts, but you're no less wrong for it."

Projecting much...? lol!

Go make another 100 videos preaching your fairytale about how all problems would magically disappear if only we abolished the government, you "aspiring novelist" you (children's fantasy books, I suppose... lol)!

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

**"Projecting much...? lol!"

Nah, just calling a spade a spade, kiddo. I hope God isn't too angry about how you've made a habit of badgering people over the Internet. Baby Jesus is probably crying. Your home life must be utter shit.

[Kbiomech]

Actually, belief in gods existence, without referent to a specific religion, is deism, not theism. Theism is based on a 'god' that actively intervenes in the lives of it's followers.

And no, I have no specific concept of god. My belief is indeed negative, I don't believe the bullshit of organized religion. You are still engaging in logical fallacies. What's more, I think you DO know it.

[TheSockWithNoName]

"And no, I have no specific concept of god."

You DO have a concept, if it's specific, I don't know, but you do have it, and you have demonstrated it.

"My belief is indeed negative, I don't believe the bullshit of organized religion."

So your "god" is the abrahamic god.

So you DO have a concept of god, namely, the Abrahamic god, the mythological being YHWH. QED

"You are still engaging in logical fallacies."

You wish. I have been perfectly consistent so far. You, not so much.

[salpety]

I`ve tried to understand everithing,

and I think I did.

bien compañero

un abrazo desde españa

ANARCHISM IS IN OUR HEARTHS

IN OUR MIND, IN OUR SOUL...

[Genowulf]

5* excellent.

[buddhagem]

Sorry but your comments in your reparations video seemed odd coming from an anarchist. I'd basically agree with your position here...I'd heard this argument called something else...can't recall it now. Five Stars

[Signofthedollar]

What exactly is the difference between libertarianism and Objectivism?

[lordmetroid]

objectivism is an unprincipled take on the non-aggresion principle. Advocating war, state and other violence.

[Kbiomech]

Less rigidity of philosophy in libertarianism. Libertarianism could encompass Objectivists within it's broad form, but the reverse is not true. Also, since a sizeable minority of libertarians are anarchists, Objectivism would be incompatible with our philosophy because it advocates the existence of a limited state.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Your position basically skips over the burden of proof issue altogether by just relegating the pertinent concepts to [effectively] floating abstraction status, hence rendering the entire theistic position incoherent and untestable. I tend to agree, and your approach is certainly more straightforward than the four-part analysis of Christianity I posted yesterday. Well said.

[tommasfoolery]

i agree with you. but, i always get confused between the concept of "god" and the concept of something like "justice". "justice" is abstract enough where you cannot refer to a concrete object in reality to define it (identify it, if we're using an irreducible primary). the definition of justice is derived from the actions of men. can you explain how that is different from "god"?

[XOmniverse]

Because when discussing a given conception of justice (such as the libertarian non-aggression approach) you can refer to concrete attributes and situations and say "That is just" or "That is not just."

"Justice" in general is arguably a nebulous and not so useful concept, but once it is precisely defined (such as by libertarians) it is very concrete and useful.

[salpety]

We are having problems here, because catolic church from spain have said to catolic people that they must to vote to a party who finish with homosexual's marrys and other laws. They want to keep a law that keep church nearly state economy... you know? ...And a lot of people follow them with blind eyes......Fucking fascists... franco's spirit is alive ...

salud y anarquia

[Kbiomech]

You will continue to have such problems as long as any form of State still exists. Whatever group actually grabs 'em, there's always some group after the reins of power. We need to remove the bridle.

[thorsmitersaw]

the ring of power