Cart Before The Horse: The Incoherency of the God Concept

[DeaconVerter]

Astronauts returned from space. "We found intelligent alien life" they say. "What are the aliens like?" people asked. The astronauts replied, "they are wise, kind, gracious and technologically advanced." The people were unsatisfied with this answer.

[j42002]

the concept of meaning is not physical. a concept in not physical. i don't understand this argument. i hope to hear from you.

[ScepticalAgnostic]

@j42002

I'm not sure whether I understand your comment, either.

Would you mind sending me a PM or video response? It'll help me in explaining myself if you've got something confused or I've got something wrong. (:

[listen2meokidoki]

The most fundamental question, not yet answered is, what is THOUGHT.

We THINK of icecream & we TASTE it.

But so far all we seem to know is the region where we find thouight. Mostly In our heads. But how can an electrical discharge become thought? Is it the 3D pattern of electrical ENERGY? Then of course we have to ask where does self consciousness exist? Hyper space? Electriclal energy is material/energy. But is a sequence & 3D shape of electric discharge (associated with thought), MATERIAL?

[ScepticalAgnostic]

"Mind is a function of, realised in, but not [ontologically] reducible to, the brain."

-John Searle

[wilbert127]

I love John Searle.

[listen2meokidoki]

If mind is not reducible to the brain, it is nevertheless located within the space occupied by the organism. Most discount to bowels, rectum and spleen and skin from their musings. Any metaphysical untestable postulate of the mind will remain mere imagining. Such as stating the mind can permiate space. And god is everywhere all at once and is all things to all men&women. To me, such musings are the same as achemy. We needed testable information before we could actually turn lead to gold.

[ScepticalAgnostic]

I added in the 'ontologically' to try and stop you misunderstanding. The mind is emphatically not the brain, in the same way that my idea of a green stapler is not green and can't stick pieces of paper together.

The mind is causally reducible to the brain - which is what Searle meant by things like 'thirst is in the hyperthalamus'. Talking about ideas without reference to the physical is senseless, but so is denying the mind - you have to assume the mind to do it.

[ScepticalAgnostic]

A neat parallel to Searle's biological naturalism is digestion - digestion is a function of, realised in, but not reducible to, the digestive system from start to finish.

[JohnQPublic11]

God only manifests Himself in ways which can be meaningfully discussed in physical formats via spoken words, or when written down. Thus, God follows the criteria of analytical physicalism.

[ScepticalAgnostic]

@JohnQPublic11

So, God is a concept, or a facet of language, according to you. But RD define God as an agent - which is he?

Incidentally, another blatent copypasta without any coherent argument to be had won't be accepted this time around. Put up a response that takes longer than hitting CTRL+V and I might be more convinced that you aren't a troll.

[wilbert127]

ScepticalAgnostic, If you think analytical physicalism is not self-defeating simply because it is adressed in words, both spoken and written, then God gets the same excuse. One could even allow for religious experience to count in this way because God could be manifesting himself in neurological states and such.

[ScepticalAgnostic]

The analogy isn't quite right, though; I am not arguing that the God concept - the word - is self-defeating, or meaningless. I am arguing that the concept of a non-physical thing is incoherent, and the product of an error.

Concepts are immaterial, but they are also causally inert, -because- they are immaterial. Without a coherent, non-physical ontology, the discussion of any other non-physical thing is literally pointless.

[ScepticalAgnostic]

Incidentally, the argument from religious experience is hardly convincing - it could be manifestations of an incoherent being, but - more likely - it is no different to people who see other mutually exclusive Gods, or Napoleon. Either they mis-label some feeling or other, or they are hallucinating (unless they can objectively demonstrate otherwise). Ockham's Razor is a beautiful thing.

[wilbert127]

Ok, so you allow for concepts to be immaterial but what if God was immaterial AND non-causal, say like a pantheistic God. Would that then make for a coherant God? I agree that without a postive immaterial ontology, God talk is meaningless. Im just trying to look for any holes in your argument.

[ScepticalAgnostic]

You're exposing these things largely because I haven't had the chance to make a video on analytical physicalism - which is a large mistake on my part.

Concepts are causally inert; calling God immaterial and non-causal would be calling it/him a concept. That's fine, but then we still need to define what God is, and how it/he can be ostensively verified. If it/he can't, we're back at step one with incoherency.

[JohnQPublic11]

The concept of God only manifests itself in ways which can be meaningfully discussed in physical formats via spoken words, or when written down. Thus, it follows the criteria of analytical physicalism.

[ScepticalAgnostic]

@JohnQPublic11

Spoken like someone who knows their copy-paste skills, but not so hot on the watching the video side.

The God-concept has yet to demonstrate that it is even a coherent concept in the first place. If something lacks positive ontology, it cannot be meaningfully discussed.

Even if I did grant your spurious notion to be true, you would only be affirming the ability to discuss a concept. How, exactly, would you be closer to demonstrating that this concept exists?

[wilbert127]

You state that everything that can be meaningfully discussed is either a physical object or a representation there of The problem however, is that analytical physicalism does not adhere to this; it is neither a physical object, nor a representation of an object, that is, as you say, an idea about an object; because it is neither physical, nor a representation of objects, by its own definition it is a meaningless position.

[ScepticalAgnostic]

@wilbert127

Not this tired objection again.

The concept of analytical physicalism only manifests itself in ways which can be meaningfully discussed in physical formats - via spoken words, or when written down. Thus, it follows its own criteria. QED.

[wilbert127]

Im not sure this works, but it might because your position is not exactly the same as logical positvism. It does seem problematic to reduce the concept of AP to the physical manifestation of it. If you do that then your argument against God falls apart because it seems to follow that if I just write "God" down, it is then meaningful.

[cowboycoco]

Great vid, I hope this is one that they will respond to. I would be very interested to see how they reply. Of the videos I have seen, rational dawn's very definition of god has been attacked from so many angles, they're going to have to spend a great deal of time simply justifying their concept of god before they can even take on the meaty issues of Evil, Hiddeness, Unbelief and the like.

[ScepticalAgnostic]

@cowboycoco

Thanks very much. I'm very interested myself in seeing RD's response to this objection.