God.

[Unhealthy2]

It still doesn't change the fact that "God", with or without quotes, is still a word in and of itself. The meaning behind it is what we call the "definition" of the word.

The rules of English most certainly do mean that when one says that god is a word, they are making a fundamental kind of grammatical error if the quotes are excluded.

[Dyakovo]

Nope. "God" whether capitalized or not is a word. It might refer to a specific being who may or not not actually exist.

Actually no. "God" is a word. God, without the quotes, is not. Use-mention error, butch!

Actually, yes. With or without quotes it is still a word.

a unit of language that native speakers can identify

[Jasonovia]

So if God is responsible for all that, why would creation suddenly be done by "magic"?

Who said that God is responsible for all that? But your point is similar to my viewpoint on God: that he merely influences minor elements of the universe and watches them ripple into more profound changes. For example, instead of creating Man, he would influence the probability of various molecules to combine into RNA and DNA.

My view is that God is directly responsible for everything, and that simply learning more about it doesn't change that any. Gravitation is God moving the planets and so on. So I'm not sure how close our views really are.

[Unhealthy2]

Actually, yes. With or without quotes it is still a word.

No it's not. The basic rules of grammar dictate that a word without quotes is to be a signifier of its definition, ergo, when one uses the word "god" in a sentence without the quotes, it is a signifier of the concept of god, and thus, to say "God is a word." is not a valid sentence unless you are also claiming that the thing signified by the word is itself a word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80% ... istinction

[YellowApple]

Who said that God is responsible for all that? But your point is similar to my viewpoint on God: that he merely influences minor elements of the universe and watches them ripple into more profound changes. For example, instead of creating Man, he would influence the probability of various molecules to combine into RNA and DNA.

My view is that God is directly responsible for everything, and that simply learning more about it doesn't change that any. Gravitation is God moving the planets and so on. So I'm not sure how close our views really are.

The problem with that view, then, is that there are quantifiable and scientifically explainable causes of phenomena such as gravity and chemical bonding. It would be illogical to throw those out the window and say that God does everything. In fact, why would He even *want* to do everything and micromanage His universe? It would be significantly easier for Him to merely influence the probability of random events than try to create something. If He wants humans, he'd affect the probability of evolution creating them. If He wants a moon made of cheese, he would influence the probability of atoms combining into molecules combining into a giant sphere of cheddar.

[YellowApple]

Actually, yes. With or without quotes it is still a word.

No it's not. The basic rules of grammar dictate that a word without quotes is to be a signifier of its definition, ergo, when one uses the word "god" in a sentence without the quotes, it is a signifier of the concept of god, and thus, to say "God is a word." is not a valid sentence unless you are also claiming that the thing signified by the word is itself a word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80% ... istinction

As already mentioned, a word is still a word, whether or not it's used. You're referring to the "definition" of a word.



This painting describes what I mean pretty accurately. Although the painting is of a pipe, the painting of the pipe is not the pipe itself. Likewise, although "God" is a word describing a (typically) omnipresent and omniscient being, the word "God" is not, in and of itself, that being.

[Unhealthy2]

This painting describes what I mean pretty accurately. Although the painting is of a pipe, the painting of the pipe is not the pipe itself. Likewise, although "God" is a word describing a (typically) omnipresent and omniscient being, the word "God" is not, in and of itself, that being.

I never said that the word "god" was anything but a word. I said that god is not a word. "God" is a word, but god is not. Seriously people, this is a basic concept of analytic philosophy!

[Labno]

No it's not. The basic rules of grammar dictate that a word without quotes is to be a signifier of its definition, ergo, when one uses the word "god" in a sentence without the quotes, it is a signifier of the concept of god, and thus, to say "God is a word." is not a valid sentence unless you are also claiming that the thing signified by the word is itself a word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80% ... istinction

As already mentioned, a word is still a word, whether or not it's used. You're referring to the "definition" of a word.



This painting describes what I mean pretty accurately. Although the painting is of a pipe, the painting of the pipe is not the pipe itself. Likewise, although "God" is a word describing a (typically) omnipresent and omniscient being, the word "God" is not, in and of itself, that being.

I don't think that guy can handle this fact, put it like this to hold the word god in such high esteem is idolatry. Now do you get it [these are correct biblical terms right, I wouldn't know for I am not a Christian].

[Unhealthy2]

I don't think that guy can handle this fact, put it like this to hold the word god in such high esteem is idolatry. Now do you get it [these are correct biblical terms right, I wouldn't know for I am not a Christian].

Hey Einstein, I'm a naturalistic atheist.

[Mosasauria]

I didn't say it was. Just making the point not everything happens for a reason.

That depends on what you mean by "reason." Does everything happen with an intent behind it? Well, no. Is everything deterministic? Well, I think it is.

And yes, I understand the QM objections and I do have arguments against those, but I doubt you'd like to read my 30 or so page reformulation of QM and theories of measurement, wave-function collapse, and superposition of states.

I have no idea what you just said...
Fucking public school education...

[Labno]

I don't think that guy can handle this fact, put it like this to hold the word god in such high esteem is idolatry. Now do you get it [these are correct biblical terms right, I wouldn't know for I am not a Christian].

Hey Einstein, I'm a naturalistic atheist.

You were not acting that way.

[Mosasauria]

This painting describes what I mean pretty accurately. Although the painting is of a pipe, the painting of the pipe is not the pipe itself. Likewise, although "God" is a word describing a (typically) omnipresent and omniscient being, the word "God" is not, in and of itself, that being.

I never said that the word "god" was anything but a word. I said that god is not a word. "God" is a word, but god is not. Seriously people, this is a basic concept of analytic philosophy!

Now that I understand.
And yes, it is a word.

[Jasonovia]

My view is that God is directly responsible for everything, and that simply learning more about it doesn't change that any. Gravitation is God moving the planets and so on. So I'm not sure how close our views really are.

The problem with that view, then, is that there are quantifiable and scientifically explainable causes of phenomena such as gravity and chemical bonding. It would be illogical to throw those out the window and say that God does everything. In fact, why would He even *want* to do everything and micromanage His universe? It would be significantly easier for Him to merely influence the probability of random events than try to create something. If He wants humans, he'd affect the probability of evolution creating them. If He wants a moon made of cheese, he would influence the probability of atoms combining into molecules combining into a giant sphere of cheddar.

God can coincide with all scientific explanations just fine; they are not at odds with each other. Scientific explanations are basically descriptions of God's actions. No god of the gaps here. God's mere existence makes all things happen, so it's not like He has to actively "do" anything (a little iffy if that's even possible to do in an eternal state)

[Unhealthy2]

You were not acting that way.

Holding to basic rules of language and maintaining the analytic importance of the use-mention distinction is a theistic action?

[Dungeyland]

Just like the seven billionth time this has come up in General, no, I don't believe in His Lordliness, for a few key reasons.

1. Too much bad shit goes on. Whence cometh evil, and all that funky shiz, you know?
2. What kind of a douchebag god would communicate to humanity through a book that was probably written by, oh wait, humanity
3. Why is it that throughout humanity, people have always looked for reasons to talk down to themselves, or others. First, there was sin. Now, there is "we've all caused global warming and will eventually die a miserable death because of it".
4. Evidence? Why should His Lordliness be assumed to exist on the basis of lack of evidence?

[Labno]

I never said that the word "god" was anything but a word. I said that god is not a word. "God" is a word, but god is not. Seriously people, this is a basic concept of analytic philosophy!

Now that I understand.
And yes, it is a word.

I think this is beginning to show the limitations of the written language.

[Norstal]

That depends on what you mean by "reason." Does everything happen with an intent behind it? Well, no. Is everything deterministic? Well, I think it is.

And yes, I understand the QM objections and I do have arguments against those, but I doubt you'd like to read my 30 or so page reformulation of QM and theories of measurement, wave-function collapse, and superposition of states.

I have no idea what you just said...
Fucking public school education...

Basically, what he's referring to is how we are able to calculate anything, if we have the means to do so. For example, how a particle move to one place can be determined by a mathematical equation.

He can probably explain better than I can. Damn you limitations in written language!

[Unhealthy2]

I think this is beginning to show the limitations of the written language.

No, just the limitations of a non-ideal, non-Tractatus language.

[Unhealthy2]

Basically, what he's referring to is how we are able to calculate anything, if we have the means to do so. For example, how a particle move to one place can be determined by a mathematical equation.

He can probably explain better than I can. Damn you limitations in written language!

Actually my view rather eliminates particles.

[YellowApple]

This painting describes what I mean pretty accurately. Although the painting is of a pipe, the painting of the pipe is not the pipe itself. Likewise, although "God" is a word describing a (typically) omnipresent and omniscient being, the word "God" is not, in and of itself, that being.

I never said that the word "god" was anything but a word. I said that god is not a word. "God" is a word, but god is not. Seriously people, this is a basic concept of analytic philosophy!

Capitalization makes a huge difference here.

"God" with a capital G is what you're referring to, while "god" with a little g is a descriptor of a variety of powerful spiritual beings, and cannot be more than a word.

So you're kind of making a valid point, except you have things a bit backwards. And, likewise, God is merely represented by "God"; thus, no matter how important the word describing Him is, it is still a word nonetheless, a descriptor of his manifestation. In short, we don't worship a word, we worship its definition.

[Tavalu]

This painting describes what I mean pretty accurately. Although the painting is of a pipe, the painting of the pipe is not the pipe itself. Likewise, although "God" is a word describing a (typically) omnipresent and omniscient being, the word "God" is not, in and of itself, that being.

I never said that the word "god" was anything but a word. I said that god is not a word. "God" is a word, but god is not. Seriously people, this is a basic concept of analytic philosophy!

God it a word, look it up in any dictionary. Actually if we wanted to get technical it is not a word, but a name. Adding quotes really changes nothing. Last I looked, God is a word and is almost never in quotes. I hate when nonbelievers, try to change logic. This is a perfect example of that, I mean really, who cares. God is a word, it is used as a word and everyone that speaks English, and many other languages, knows the meaning of the word, believer or not it is obvious, even if the correct form is in quotes, which i don't think it is.

[YellowApple]

The problem with that view, then, is that there are quantifiable and scientifically explainable causes of phenomena such as gravity and chemical bonding. It would be illogical to throw those out the window and say that God does everything. In fact, why would He even *want* to do everything and micromanage His universe? It would be significantly easier for Him to merely influence the probability of random events than try to create something. If He wants humans, he'd affect the probability of evolution creating them. If He wants a moon made of cheese, he would influence the probability of atoms combining into molecules combining into a giant sphere of cheddar.

God can coincide with all scientific explanations just fine; they are not at odds with each other. Scientific explanations are basically descriptions of God's actions. No god of the gaps here. God's mere existence makes all things happen, so it's not like He has to actively "do" anything (a little iffy if that's even possible to do in an eternal state)

Then in that case, God is literally the Laws of Physics.

[Unhealthy2]

God it a word, look it up in any dictionary.

No. God is not in the dictionary; "god" is what you'll find in the dictionary.

This is like how "feces" is derived from Latin, but feces is not. Feces comes from digestion.

[Dyakovo]

Actually if we wanted to get technical it is not a word, but a name.

No, its a word. The name of the christian god is not "God".

[Labno]

I think this is beginning to show the limitations of the written language.

No, just the limitations of a non-ideal, non-Tractatus language.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904786,00.html
http://www.nonduality.com/gene15.htm
https://depts.washington.edu/egonline/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/04.KLiu_.pdf