Why is theism popular among philosophers?

Number of posts: 369 Location: Brazil Registration date: 2008-06-05

RoR, I know you deleted your old youtube channel, but did you also delete the videos? There were some good videos, despite your crassness.

Guest

Bigus Dickus wrote:

RoR, I know you deleted your old youtube channel, but did you also delete the videos?

Yeah... I reformatted my computer recently (so my videos are burning in video hell right now), and I don't generally save my videos for very long anyways. I kinda regret deleting my YT channel, but whatever... at the same time, I'm glad I did.

Bigus Dickus wrote:

despite your crassness.

I would think my crassness would score at least a few points with a guy named "Bigus Dickus".

Guest

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

At any rate, "God" is a concept that falls apart as soon as you attempt (or refuse) to define your terms.

The reason "God" is such a fine example of a nuero-linguistic virus, is because so many people STILL employ the word, even though it's demonstrably:

a) meaningless, or

b) totally superfluous and misleading/confusing

(depending on how one defines it).

Well, let's define God then shall we? I am not using a personal defnition here but rather the classic monotheistic definition which is the meaning usually attributed to the term by 99% of philosophers and theologians.

God refers to a being who has the following attributes:
incredible power [omnipotence]
incredibly knowledge [omniscience] - can know everything which can be known
personal
benevolent [good]
holy

I think just about every other attribue would be a sub-heading under one of these.

Okay then. Over to you. Where, pray tell, is the obvious analytic contradiction in such a definition?

Guest

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

CartesianTheist wrote:

It is therefore highly significant that more and more philosophers are either interested in theism or are theists themselves.

Sure... it's significant, just not in the way you think it is. Apparently, you want to imply some sort of appeal to authority here, or perhaps a type of argumentum ad populum, and all I can say to that, is that you might want to learn something about logical fallacies.

It is neither of those logical fallacies in fact. It all depends upon the context of using such data.

Would it be a logical fallacy to say it is significant that 99% of biologists believe in evolution? Of course not. There is significance to that. Especially if you're not a biologist and you want to then question evolution. It's incredibly significant.

All I'm pointing out is that theism is flourishing amongst philosophers at the beginning of the 21st century. How am I going to substantiate hat? Well I need to start naming names don't I? Hardly a logical fallacy my friend.

You seem very nervous at the thought of highly intelligent people believing in God. Whatever the emotions - the facts are the facts.

Guest

CartesianTheist wrote:

Well, let's define God then shall we? I am not using a personal defnition here but rather the classic monotheistic definition which is the meaning usually attributed to the term by 99% of philosophers and theologians.

God refers to a being who has the following attributes:
incredible power [omnipotence]
incredibly knowledge [omniscience] - can know everything which can be known
personal
benevolent [good]
holy

I think just about every other attribue would be a sub-heading under one of these.

Okay then. Over to you. Where, pray tell, is the obvious analytic contradiction in such a definition?

Let's start with "being". I'm not sure what you mean by that. Which definition are you using?

Guest

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

CartesianTheist wrote:

As for:

"...but in the end, all philosophy is nonsense."

That is self-refuting in a very obvious way!

Obviously, you're trying to imply that linguistics is a branch of philosophy, and thus I'm contradicting myself by saying philosophy is nonsense (as demonstrated by linguistics).

Not obvious at all then. No, I'm not. [Although it would be foolish to say that there was no such thing as linguistic philosophy in the 20th century especially.] Claiming that "philosophy is nonsense" is virtually nothing to do with linguistics [other than the fact you are using words] - it has everything to do with philosophy!

So - you are saying something is nonsense [using logic - a crucial branch of philosophy] since you are claiming to know [which is the branch of philosophy called epistemology]. Therefore your claim is a philosophical one. But since all philosophy is nonsense your own philosophical statement is nonsense too.

Self refuting in the most obvious of ways. It's akin to saying "All communication is meaningless!" Think about that for a moment.

Guest

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

CartesianTheist wrote:

Well, let's define God then shall we? I am not using a personal defnition here but rather the classic monotheistic definition which is the meaning usually attributed to the term by 99% of philosophers and theologians.

God refers to a being who has the following attributes:
incredible power [omnipotence]
incredibly knowledge [omniscience] - can know everything which can be known
personal
benevolent [good]
holy

I think just about every other attribue would be a sub-heading under one of these.

Okay then. Over to you. Where, pray tell, is the obvious analytic contradiction in such a definition?

Let's start with "being". I'm not sure what you mean by that. Which definition are you using?

That's fine but so far - no contradictions. No hidden meanings here. Just a very standard usage.

"Being:
- the state or fact of existing or living; existence or life
- fundamental or essential nature
- one who lives or exists, or is assumed to do so; ie. a human being, a divine being
- all the physical and mental qualities that make up a person; personality"

Guest

CartesianTheist wrote:

So - you are saying something is nonsense [using logic - a crucial branch of philosophy] since you are claiming to know [which is the branch of philosophy called epistemology]. Therefore you claim is a philosophical one. But since all philosophy is nonsense your own philosophical statement is nonsense too.

Epistemology is pointless as well. It can be reduced to a few very basic things that once again, do not require, necessitate, nor sustain the concept of philosophy.

Philosophy adds nothing to what we do or do not know.

Guest

CartesianTheist wrote:

"Being:
- the state or fact of existing or living; existence or life
- fundamental or essential nature
- one who lives or exists, or is assumed to do so; ie. a human being, a divine being
- all the physical and mental qualities that make up a person; personality"

Dude... first of all, you were clearly using "being" as a noun. Your definition should reflect that.

Second of all, just because a word can have multiple definitions in a dictionary, doesn't mean that that remains true when the word is placed into a context (such as a sentence).

For example, the word "light" can mean very different things (i.e. the opposite of dark, and opposite of heavy). However, when used in context, it generally can't refer to both of those things at the same time.

So... when I asked you to define "being", I meant, give me THE definition you were employing in the following phrase:

"God refers to a being".

Guest

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

CartesianTheist wrote:

So - you are saying something is nonsense [using logic - a crucial branch of philosophy] since you are claiming to know [which is the branch of philosophy called epistemology]. Therefore you claim is a philosophical one. But since all philosophy is nonsense your own philosophical statement is nonsense too.

Epistemology is pointless as well. It can be reduced to a few very basic things that once again, do not require, necessitate, nor sustain the concept of philosophy.

Philosophy adds nothing to what we do or do not know.

That's self-refuting as well!! Haha. ANY claim to knowledge is an epistemological one. It is exactly like saying "Everything said in English is meaningless!" In order for your point to be heard it has to be false. How can you not see this???

Philosophy is the only way we can know.

How, do you know anything? Through trusting your senses? Well then you have bought into a specific type of philosophy - only you don't know what it's called.

Guest

Being - a thinking, self-aware, non-physical person who exists

Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:11 am

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

I would make the same case against philosophy. Just about everything that people call "philosophy", is nothing more than language games.

I felt all along we were pretty much on the same page, and I appreciate your further expressed and clarifying thoughts on it.

To pin it down just a tad farther, would it be ~~better~~ more accurate regarding your position, contextually, to have expressed it as: Just about everything that people apply the word "philosophy" to, is nothing more than language games." ? [not to get into A J Ayers' argument that the philosopher's "...function is to clarify the propositions of science by exhibiting their logical relationships, and by defining the symbols that occur in them." ---LT&L, page 32]

Quote:

Even if you admitted that 98% of "philosophy" was bullshit, and only applied the term to the remaining 2%, the remaining 2% would become far more clear if you abandoned the idea of "philosophy" altogether. (especially because of all the baggage the concept carries with it). At best then, philosophy is superfluous. At worst, it actually causes loads of confusion, and actually accomplishes the opposite of what people generally intend to use it for.

This still leaves me scratch

. It seems by your 2% statement, that you see the process (or exercise?) labeled as philosophy as valuable/valid on one hand, but then your other comments lead me to hear you saying the word isn't the problem, the process itself is?? Apologies if it is the medium (or my ineptness/your cursory reply/the inherentancies of the potential of language being a game/etc) that's complicating this for me.

Taking your admonition as indeed the most efficient approach, looking back then at your original comment I queried you about:

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

Once you realize ... you realize.

So is there a label (and/or synonyms) you might suggest or that you use, that would communicate effectively regarding the process by which one arrived at this "once", as such realization --being valid/valuable, etc?

Guest

Wow, people are still using Ayer in the 21st century?! I didn't know that! I though he and the rest of the Vienna Circle were being allowed to RIP!!

Guest

CartesianTheist wrote:

Being - a thinking, self-aware, non-physical person who exists

Firstly, that sounds like a definition that you just made up.

The reason it's obvious that you just made it up is because your definition is self-contradictory on two counts.

The word "person" refers to a human being. Humans are physical, biological entities.

The word "exist" generally refers to something that is composed of matter/energy. Maybe you have some other definition, but we won't get to that until you can give me a valid definition for "being".

Already (right out of the gate)... your "God" is falling apart when defined (just as I said it would).

I'm curious... were you originally planning on telling me that you were using a "secret" definition that you just made up for the word "being"? Would you have told me that if I didn't ask you?

At any rate, a self-contradictory definition obviously isn't valid. Perhaps you should pick a definition from the dictionary, and that way, I won't have to waste time revealing your little language games/tricks; we can skip all that, and just use language and words in standard, commonly understood ways.

Anyways... you'll need to provide a definition of "being" that isn't self-contradictory. You can easily avoid that by choosing a real definition from a dictionary.

Number of posts: 31 Age: 23 Registration date: 2008-11-26

CartesianTheist, I notice that you left out omnipresence, as well as something which, while not necessarily standard amongst philosophers (I wouldn't know), I have nonetheless heard attributed to God, namely, extratemporality, or existing outside of time. What do you think of these two concepts regarding God?

» Chuck Colson Article We're More Popular than Jesus
» ARMIN VAN BUUREN - The World's most popular DJ has a simian line!
» Popular sports in the 1500s
» Theism v. Non-Theism
» New Hair Cloning Trial featured in Popular Science Magazine

Why is theism popular among philosophers?

Why is theism popular among philosophers?

Similar topics

Similar topics