Originally posted by whodeyare we in another dimension where 2 + 2 = other than 4?
In the here and now yes, in another diminsion????
come to think of it, that is where I am -- Washington D.C., one of the few places outside of Wall Street where if you ask what is 2 + 2 = the answer you get back 9 times out of 10 is "how much do you want it to be?"
Originally posted by Scriabinchess is truth!
you have trouble with my question because you are ignorant and wish to assume you can make up a definition or express an opinion about the language you use and not repeat that which has already gone before.
Back up your claim that "often the new good ideas are exactly those that the "majority of professional philosophers and scholars" do not agree with." ...[text shortened]... yet? Einstein made a few predictions, did he not? How did things turn out for him?
Originally posted by ScriabinWell there you go!!! 😛
are we in another dimension where 2 + 2 = other than 4?
come to think of it, that is where I am -- Washington D.C., one of the few places outside of Wall Street where if you ask what is 2 + 2 = the answer you get back 9 times out of 10 is "how much do you want it to be?"
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinHis arguments do not depend on the uses of language at all, but simply in not being logically contradictory in one's definitions.
Well, I cited this argument to lead us where you've gone. All concepts of truth, reality, God, depend on language and its uses. If I'm convinced of anything, it is that analysis of our use of language often helps us separate the wheat from the chaff.
The omnipotence paradox is a family of related paradoxes.
Descartes argued that God is absolutely omn ...[text shortened]... he Omnipotence Paradox may be a linguistic twist on the definition of the word "omnipotent."
Of course, language is needed to communicate this to you, but communication itself is not a requirement.
Originally posted by Palynkayou like to contradict yourself, I see
His arguments do not depend on the uses of language at all, but simply in not being logically contradictory in one's definitions.
Of course, language is needed to communicate this to you, but communication itself is not a requirement.
how can a definition be independent of language?
Originally posted by Scriabinin simple terms, I use that term to mean that I have seen no evidence to convince me God talk has any pragmatic purpose or relevance to our lives.
in simple terms, I use that term to mean that I have seen no evidence to convince me God talk has any pragmatic purpose or relevance to our lives.
People can believe the moon is made of green cheese, the Earth is flat, and electricity is the Devil's work, and I don't care so long as my civil rights and my government aren't compromised by such crazies.
...[text shortened]... lished by evidence, I am open to new information.
Therefore, I would say I am apatheistic.
Okay, thanks. That does not align with any version of 'noncognitivism' I have come across. And I see no reason to call that noncognitivism because it doesn't seem to preserve the essential ingredient of noncognitivist thought (which is roughly that -- regarding whatever area of discourse in question, whether moral or theological or whatever -- statements made in this area fail in some way to be truth-apt).
The 'apatheism' label you mentioned would, I think, be much more apropos for your view.
Originally posted by ScriabinI might type [; X \equiv Y ;] but the symbols I type are not the meaning itself. The correspondence between meaning and symbols is language, but this is not a requirement.
you like to contradict yourself, I see
how can a definition be independent of language?
Simple, really.
Originally posted by Palynkasimple but incomplete.
I might type [; X \equiv Y ;] but the symbols I type are not the meaning itself. The correspondence between meaning and symbols is language, but this is not a requirement.
Simple, really.
your "requirement" is a systemic condition that applies well to the math and not at all well to how we really communicate. Again, you appear stuck in the correspondence theory -- it ain't the only thought in the marketplace of ideas.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou can't blame me for the limits of your experience or education.
[b]in simple terms, I use that term to mean that I have seen no evidence to convince me God talk has any pragmatic purpose or relevance to our lives.
Okay, thanks. That does not align with any version of 'noncognitivism' I have come across. And I see no reason to call that noncognitivism because it doesn't seem to preserve the essential ingredien ...[text shortened]...
The 'apatheism' label you mentioned would, I think, be much more apropos for your view.[/b]
As one who is consistent about theological noncognitivism, I await a coherent definition of the word God (or of any other metaphysical utterance purported to be discussable) before being able to engage in arguments for or against God's existence.
In the meantime, I just don't think God talk is at all meaningful -- both because it is non-verifiable and because I find no concept for the term "God", no meaningful attributes, only negatively defined or relational attributes.
Originally posted by ScriabinSince "math" is just a language, you're argument is circular.
simple but incomplete.
your "requirement" is a systemic condition that applies well to the math and not at all well to how we really communicate. Again, you appear stuck in the correspondence theory -- it ain't the only thought in the marketplace of ideas.
Of course it "ain't" the only valid perspective. But it's enough to show that my argument before is not necessarily contradictory.
Do you want to try again?