2 edits
Originally posted by checkbaiterFor some reason, CB, our (very cordial) personal history on here makes me not want to have an argument with you. Don't know why that is exactly--I have argued with others on here that I have also considered friends (and I think the feeling has been mutual). I will, of course continue to post what I post, as will you. And we will disagree.
Ok, so from now on I will refer to Him as my Holy, Loving God, Creator of the Universe who will laugh at those who reject Him, since His creation is all around us as His Witness...🙂
So how can I respond now to you, except . . . 🙂 As always, I hope you are well.
Originally posted by vistesdNow V, how can I argue with a comment like that? I consider you a friend as well, and the loving thing to do , my hearts desire is to point you to the diamond in the ruff.
For some reason, CB, our (very cordial) personal history on here makes me not want to have an argument with you. Don't know why that is exactly--I have argued with others on here that I have also considered friends (and I think the feeling has been mutual). I will, of course continue to post what I post, as will you. And we will disagree.
So how can I respond now to you, except . . . 🙂 As always, I hope you are well.
You are indeed a deep thinker, I marvel at the wording you use in your posts. However, I as an uneducated man in vocabulary can clearly see you searching for what is right under your nose. How can that be?..🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdLet me point out that the English Dictionary at the time the King James Bible was published defined "unicorn" as a one horn rhinoceros, which is also referred to as the Indian rhinoceros with scientific name of rhinoceros unicornis.
Thanks. Some theological noncognitivists appear to view the absence of a referent in that way. However, the version outlined in the third quoted paragraph from wiki (in the opening post) really indicates that “god” is a cognitively meaningless term (at least under some definitions) itself. I was using the terms “sign” and “signified” following something ...[text shortened]... In a discourse that distinguishes between signified and referent; see my last paragraph above.
Here is one example from a Middle English Distionary online.
unicorn(e (n.) Also unikorn, (errors) unyncorn, uicorne; pl. unicornes, unicornus.
[OF unicorne, unicorn & L nicornuus, nicornis, ML nicornus.]
(a) A fabulous single-horned animal to which was generally attributed a fierce disposition and certain magical abilities; any one-horned, or apparently one-horned, animal, esp. the rhinoceros; also in fig. context;
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED48892
The Instructor
Originally posted by checkbaiterHow can that be?
Now V, how can I argue with a comment like that? I consider you a friend as well, and the loving thing to do , my hearts desire is to point you to the diamond in the ruff.
You are indeed a deep thinker, I marvel at the wording you use in your posts. However, I as an uneducated man in vocabulary can clearly see you searching for what is right under your nose. How can that be?..🙂
Methinks that when he were at the shore in which you are standing right now, a certain falsity stung him like a hornet😵
Originally posted by vistesdHi vistesd. This is a good topic. That wikipedia article is absolutely atrocious. Especially this mis-informative claim:
I thought that this might be an interesting topic for discussion, following on the “atheism is a belief system” thread.
The passages below are from the Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism
“Theological noncognitivists claim that all alleged definitions for the term "God" amount to "God is that which caused e ...[text shortened]... coherent/meaningful—and I thinkl would have to be udged on a case-by-case basis.
“Theological noncognitivists claim that all alleged definitions for the term "God" amount to "God is that which caused everything but God", which "defines God in terms of God", thus is circular.”
🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄
More generally, the issue deals with whether or not God-statements like "God exists" are cognitively meaningful. The wiki article does at least give a reference to a Conifer paper that I think is somewhat informative on the topic. I would recommend something like that paper as a good starting point for the discussion. I agree with the author that theological noncognitivism is generally false:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090326144947/http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Journal/Archives/2002/Conifer.htm