| In Defence Of Theological Incognitivism 2 |
[Oct. 24th, 2017|10:44 am] |
> Instead of spending your time defending what he meant - when you clearly
> do not know - why not just focus on why 'god' should be in the gibberish
> class.
fine.
from now on i have enough material to give you my answers without any reference to the previous conversation you had.
1.
since you've repeatedly claimed that "magic" has a definition (that has a cognitive meaning) would you be so kind giving me this definition?
> When I use the word magic, people recognize it without further
> explanation.
yes! same with me!
i use "magic" to designate unknowable or fake.
this is a different word "magic", say sarcastic-magic.
there is another "magic" -- stage magic
these are THREE DIFFERENT HOMONYMOUS WORDS
homonymity is not identity.
stage magic -- cognizeable
sarcastic magic -- cognizeable
magical magic -- gibberish
> It is not equivalent to me saying "Tonight, I'm going to
> perform some xyqwhjs".
if you say: "I'm going to perform magic"
in any other sense that is not sarcastic, not stage magic
not an attempt to CONCEAL the act you are going to perfom,
then it is equivalent to say: "i'm going to perform xyqwhjs"
because you DO NOT KNOW WHAT EXACTLY YOU ARE GOING TO PERFORM
magic in this case is a placeholder whose intent is to confuse the recipient of your message.
> There's nothing 'word salad' about saying:
>
> God is the supreme being.
> A god is a proposed being of great or maximal power and/or virtue. An
> agent, hypothetical or actual, which is viewed by many as the creator
> and sustainer of all existence.
there is at least one component of word salad in this phrase:
"which is viewed by many"
it SWITCHES THE NOTION of "god" right in the middle of the proposed definition.
"god" as a "supreme being" is our God in question.
"god" as being viewed by many is a notion of the IDEA OF GOD which is a separate object
the idea of god and God share the name "god" -- it does not make them the same object.
also, being viewed by many should not in any way alter the nature of the alleged God, therefore it should be removed from the proposed definition.
> this is word salad:
> Butterfly taco be fargle as fdsja or da afwoallkds.
Same is:
"Supreme being"
> Absent additional content, that sentence conveys no cognitive meaning.
> You could argue that butterfly and taco convey meaning
You could argue that "supreme" and "being" convey meaning.
but they don't in this particular sentence.
> there's no indication that those two recognizable words carry any
> normative meaning when...
...being connected.
they are not surrounded by gibberish unlike in your example
but the gibberish is injected into the connection of these words.
we both know what is "supreme" in different contexts,
we both know what is "being" as a human being, for example.
but we do not know what is "being" without a body!!!
it requires a definition.
we dont know what is supreme as an adjective for this new kind of "being"
it also requires a definition.
"supreme being" as a replacement for "god"
gave us zero information
2 undefined words + 1 undefined relation between words
carries exactly the same amount of information as 1 undefined word
> Any non-theological example of a poorly-defined word nevertheless
> has an ACTUAL PHYSICAL PHENOMENON behind it.
>
> Not any more so that anything else...
all you need to do is to give me an example of a meaningful word lacking a physical phenomenon
> You're ignoring any number of things that can't be 'shown' in the way an
> armchair can...
example?
> and your entire argument is now:
> If it cannot be demonstrated as an actually physical phenomenon, it's
> gibberish.
very close.
and you ignored the entire section that explains why is this so.
also you missed another detail:
there are TWO ways to convey meaning:
a physical demonstration or a formal definition (comprised of previously defined terms)
"god" has NEITHER.
> People can conceive of things without a real world correlary.
> Unicorn isn't gibberish. Superman isn't gibberish.
They are fictional, Matt :)
which means: they are imaginary representatives of real world classes of objects. They convey meaning by the relation of membership in a well-defined non-gibberish classes.
Unicorns and Supermans are composed of real things!
...mostly real and some unreal too, but a dose gibberish within fiction is spicy.
> I'm done here, this is no longer a good use of my time.
too bad, Matt.
The burden of proof is yours!
you claim the existence of the definition. |
|
|
