Philosophical Vegan Forum

'God' is a word which points to a concept.

Which concept that word points to is not inherently clear, because words have no inherent meaning.

The functional meaning of words is based on how people use them (descriptivism)

The way the overwhelming majority of English speakers use the word 'god' refers to a being that is logically impossible due it its nature.

God, in the sense that it is meant when the question is asked using standard English definitions, does not exist.


Although as language changes, and definitions with it, perhaps in the future god will exist- described in such a radically different way as to be logically coherent or even necessary.

Any theist who aspires to be taken seriously at all should first:

1. Recognize that the standard definition of god is illogical, and that such a god does not exist.

2. If he or she will present anything other than the standard definition for consideration, make it abundantly clear how it deviates from the standard definition- and define it clearly and consistently for the purposes of discussion.

3. Understand that we may dismiss that definition as irrelevant or dishonest. If you define 'god' so bizarrely as "the universe" or only as "love", you are probably either being disingenuous by hiding additional qualities you have assumed but refuse to convey, or by meaninglessly and sloppily applying the word 'god' to things we already have words for in direct opposition to prevailing word usage just to confuse people and obfuscate your position.

4. Make sure your definition, aside from being honest, is both coherent and descriptively useful-- which means being at least complete enough to delineate between things that are, and are not god. If something that is, in your view, clearly not god could also fit your definition as stated, then your definition is not adequate and it needs to be elaborated upon. Things are just as much defined by what they are not as by what they are.

If you can do that, I'd love to hear your definition.

If your definition is logically consistent as far as we can tell, I'd be glad to admit that I can't prove your particular god concept doesn't exist.

If you can campaign to the English speakers of the world, and get enough people to accept your definition that it becomes realistically descriptive of English usage- then you will have defeated my argument.

That's the first issue atheists such as myself run into when debating with average believers. Every single believer has their own idea of what god is. For the majority of believers I have encountered, it is essentially an invisible person who can somehow exist before matter or exist outside space and time. Existence is required by definition to involve space and time so these people are confused. If they were to really think about how they define god, they should indeed see for themselves that it just doesn't make sense. The problem then is they refuse to think about it, and instead assume it is true and find crappy arguments on websites and just copy and paste them.

brimstoneSalad wrote:'God' is a word which points to a concept. Which concept that word points to is not inherently clear, because words have no inherent meaning. The functional meaning of words is based on how people use them (descriptivism)

.......

If your definition is logically consistent as far as we can tell, I'd be glad to admit that I can't prove your particular god concept doesn't exist.

I agree with what you said but I couldn't help wonder how I would respond to someone who said to me;

"well, sometimes we don't understand the truth well enough for it to appear to be logical to us!"

I am most definitely not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but what about the double slit experiment in quantum physics? Am I wrong to say that so far it doesn't seem to be logical but once we understand it fully, it may change to being logical? So in the same way, a theist may suggest that maybe once we fully understand god, it may change to actually being logical to accept it's existence.

This is the basic argument that would be put forward by my conservative evangelical parents who are super nice and honestly believe that god is real. Maybe I should get a definition of god from them.. it could make an interesting topic! haha

I would be able to respond in a long, complicated way which generally goes completely over the head of the person I'm talking to, but if there is any quick way of overcoming my question in red, I would be delighted to hear it

LogicLover wrote: I agree with what you said but I couldn't help wonder how I would respond to someone who said to me;

"well, sometimes we don't understand the truth well enough for it to appear to be logical to us!"

This is called a paradox. Something which seems to be contradictory, but in fact when you understand it properly (when you get the "trick") it is not.

Providing solutions to these problems which are not contradictory (or attempting to do so), is for the main part what the field of apologetics is for.

The canonical apologia behind most people's god beliefs, however, do not solve the claimed paradoxes; they often just amass more contradictions, or attempt to obscure the ones that are already there.

If you ask many people point-blank, whether their god is beyond logic, and can do logically impossible things, they will say yes. They have no problem with their god violating logic.

This isn't even a paradox, it's quite boldly and blatantly disregarding logic.

For others, they will say no, and then attempt to provide apologia. The vast majority will cite apologia with blatant logical errors as their canon; and being part of their god concepts, their god inherits certain illogical nature from those logical errors in their failed apologia.

A few will refuse to engage, and just say that they believe that god is logical, but don't understand how any of it works. This is more of a non-definition, because it fails to answer affirmatively any of the pivotal questions surrounding this "god"'s nature.

It's like saying "I believe there's a thing... I can't describe it or explain it, but it's real." So what?

LogicLover wrote: I am most definitely not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but what about the double slit experiment in quantum physics? Am I wrong to say that so far it doesn't seem to be logical but once we understand it fully, it may change to being logical? So in the same way, a theist may suggest that maybe once we fully understand god, it may change to actually being logical to accept it's existence.

No, it's not like the double slit experiment, because:

1. The double slit experiment is a matter of observation, not assertion. Nobody has asserted that a thing behaves in a paradoxical way as part of its definition- it's just observed to do so.

2. You can get answers, now, today, which explain the double slit experiment just fine (it's not some lingering question in science, but is actually understood quite well- laymen just usually don't understand it). It's not a paradox anymore, and it's not even a big deal today outside of pop-science where the media likes to play it up as mysterious to sell papers/books.

LogicLover wrote: This is the basic argument that would be put forward by my conservative evangelical parents who are super nice and honestly believe that god is real. Maybe I should get a definition of god from them.. it could make an interesting topic! haha

Yes. If they can't or won't even define their god or answer basic questions about its inherent nature (part of defining it), then can you really say they believe in it, if they don't even know what they're supposed to be believing in?

brimstoneSalad wrote: It's like saying "I believe there's a thing... I can't describe it or explain it, but it's real." So what?

What can you say or do besides face-palming for people who don't see a problem with saying that? Or do you think there are no words, and only their experiences in the world (or lack thereof) have an impact on that belief?

LogicLover wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote: It's like saying "I believe there's a thing... I can't describe it or explain it, but it's real." So what?

What can you say or do besides face-palming for people who don't see a problem with saying that?

Give it a name and explanation that confines to the very loose definition they set to it- one they will reject. Then ask them why it's not that thing, if they can't explain why, then assert that it is until they explain why, thereby tightening the definition.


Example: "Oh, you mean Gravity! There's already a name for that, why would you relabel it as "god"? That just confuses people. Call it gravity."

"No no, not gravity!"

"Why not? It fits your definition just fine. You probably just mean gravity, and you didn't realize that's what it was called."

"No, god is more powerful than gravity. Also, he's intelligent."

"Oh, you mean Alex the parrot. He overcomes gravity by flying, and he's intelligent."

"No, god isn't an animal!"

"It it a plant?"

"No! It's not a physical thing!"

"So, you mean it's just an idea, and not a real thing. I see. Yes, all ideas technically exist as ideas. So does Thor."

Just go on like that.

If they say they don't know why it's not that thing, then as far as you're concerned, they've asserted belief in the thing you have defined it as, and they just don't realize it.

brimstoneSalad wrote:'God' is a word which points to a concept.

All words are just words given meaning by people of the past. So by this very logic your own argument falls flat and is neither proof or disproof of any God or God like figures.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:'God' is a word which points to a concept.

All words are just words given meaning by people of the past. So by this very logic your own argument falls flat and is neither proof or disproof of any God or God like figures.

I think his point is to first define a particular God, and argue from there. 'God' is not well defined and there are many different contradicting definitions people use for it. The definition that people maintain is overall gradually doing less and less—towards the God of the gaps—as science progresses (Sure there are fundamentalists still, but it's a decreasing number). The concept of God that people hundreds of years ago believed to be true is very different from many modern day people, because it doesn't fit so well with our current understanding of the world. That's why that would be a God that could be proven to be false (I didn't define this God pretty well, but it's not my point to disproof that God). Where societies are progressing, the concept of God is progressing. And as long as we don't define the God we are trying to disprove, there is always a more deistic God waiting to be defined that can't yet be disproved.

Thanks Volenta.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote: All words are just words given meaning by people of the past. So by this very logic your own argument falls flat and is neither proof or disproof of any God or God like figures.

You should read the whole post, and not just the first sentence.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Thanks Volenta.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote: All words are just words given meaning by people of the past. So by this very logic your own argument falls flat and is neither proof or disproof of any God or God like figures.

You should read the whole post, and not just the first sentence.

You shouldn't assume what you think you know I have done or not done. I am aware of what you write in it entirety. However, regardless of your reasoning your argument still falls flat on itself.