What's a category error?

The idea that (it's true that) a human should (or shouldn't) have goals or that there's a purpose to having goals.

Or are you asking what category errors are in general?

If in general, see; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Is having no goals a goal?

If someone thinks about it that way. Again, goals and purposes are not the same thing, though.

Do half-truth's exist? — 3017amen

Of course, as do half-lies.

Do you have an example of a half-lie ?

In any case can a human eradicate their goals and purposes?

As other folks on this thread have been telling you in different ways, until you can give reasonably clear definitions of the words "God" and "exist" your position is incoherent and meaningless.

I'm comfortable with half-truth's existing. — 3017amen

Do you see? You keep using the word "exist(s)" and "existing" - but as it stands, this sentence is just a bit of poetic whimsy with no meaning. Defining your terms is the first step.

a nice poem on God, a mottled color of truth — 3017amen

‘God’s image reflects the mottled colors
Painted by human artists upon the air
Where the wormed apple was before the fall
That rotted away truth’s Tree of Knowledge.

Existing: in existence or operation at the time under consideration; current.

You sound like you're overthinking this.

You asked me a question and my answer is: both.

Are you not satisfied with that answer?

So, you're saying God should not be understood as a physical entity, but as a metaphysical concept? — Echarmion

I thought it went without saying that God is not a physical entity but spirit. Of course, that then raises the question of the nature of spirit - which is the subject matter of philosophical theology. Which takes us into the territory of metaphysics.

My argument here is basically that what we nowadays understand as 'what exists' comprises the 'domain of phenomena' - those things, forces, entities, that are knowable by scientific means, the realm of naturalism, and so on. So, most often, when the question is asked whether God exists, it presumes that God is part of that domain of phenomena. Hence the 'flying spaghetti monster', the 'celestial teapot' and all the other memes that you encounter in internet atheism.

But, the effort is mainly misplaced. All the 'new atheists' (in particular) don't understand what it is they think doesn't exist. So when I refer to 'classical theology', I do that to distinguish it from American Protestant fundamentalism, which in my view makes a similar kind of error, and which I take to be a fallacious misrepresentation of genuine theology. (And actually I'm highly dubious about Protestantism generally, for reasons I won't go into here.) But as for representatives of what I would describe as classical theology, I would mention David Bentley Hart and Edward Feser, both contemporaries, and the neo-thomist philosophers, among others.

See reviews of David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God and also here.

Which would be the correct attribute or relation to describe metaphysical concepts, if "existence/nonexistence" cannot be used? Truth/Falsehood? — Echarmion

The vital perspective that has gone missing is that of degrees of reality. This is related to a worldview grounded in the idea of the chain of being - that reality emanates from or is originated by a transcendent intelligence, and cascades down through various levels of being, of which matter is the lowest level, i.e. most remote from the origin or source. And as our culture sees matter as being the only reality, then obviously understanding or coming to terms with that outlook is quite a difficult matter.

But one way into it, is through the reality of intelligibles. That is the platonist route. It will point out that whilst all phenomena are compound and transient, there is something that the intellect can grasp that is not, and that is the reality of number and geometric form. So represents knowledge of a different kind to sensory knowledge - it's direct intellectual apprehension, dianoia.

Hahaha, that was good Poetic, I love the melodramatic music!!!

Some say God is truth
Some say God is false
Others say that both are true
Like humans having faults

"... why should a human have goals? For what purpose?" --3017amen

There are no shoulds or purposes other than thinking about things in those terms. So you're looking for an answer that can't be had--it's a category error. People do think in terms of normatives and purposes and so on. It's simply a contingent fact of brain evolution. There's no purpose, there's no "should" to brains evolving as they did. — Terrapin Station

:clap:

Hey 180 don't be shy come join the party!

LOL

1. God does not exist.

True or false or something else?

All the 'new atheists' (in particular) don't understand what it is they think doesn't exist. — Wayfarer

Do theists understand what it is they think exists?

Do theists understand what it is they think exists? — Janus

I think, through practice, you 'understand' it in your bones. You might not be able to spell it out, say what it is, but you understand it by exemplifying it. So, for instance, the commandment 'love others as self' - it's easy enough to say 'oh yes, I can see what that means'. But through the practice of a faith, it actually becomes second nature. Then you 'understand' it, by living it out.

You're talking about a feeling, and I can relate to that. But no feeling entails the existence or reality of anything in particular (other than the one having the feeling I guess). I can also relate to your enactive notion of faith; it is meaningless if you only pay lip service.

As to the commandment "love others as self" I think that is perfectly natural for a socially functional animal, and does not necessarily require any special extra beliefs in anything transcendent, although it may require that for some, but I think it all depends on the way one thinks.

I think you underestimate the capacity for spirituality, for love and goodness, of the secular because you fail to understand it. It pays to remember that not everyone is the same; there is no "one size fits all" in these matters.

Religious faith, and hence practice, is unsuitable to those who cannot believe without evidence, that is what it comes down to. If you can believe without evidence then you are suited just fine to be religious or to follow some traditional spiritual path, and I'm not one to say there is anything wrong with that.

I think, through practice, you 'understand' it in your bones. You might not be able to spell it out, say what it is, but you understand it by exemplifying it. — Wayfarer

The atmosphere of paradox is handy here. Paradox is a transrational thing so not always welcome in philosophical dialog. I'm not sure if paradox is a handy way to describe god only because god insists on unanalyzability for Itself.

If I say god both exists and does not exist:

God exists as a potential illumination (sacralization, quickening, intensifying) of the fabric of reality. Through spiritual practice a person can learn how to manipulate the fabric of reality to "see" god (the subject calls his experience "seeing god" because this seems to be the most precise use of the linguistic conventions at hand). This changes the fabric of reality for the subject but has no direct effect on other people so in this sense god exists and at the same time god does not exist. The subject has compelling evidence for the existence of god. But this evidence is subjective. And the word "god" may be a reluctant terminological necessity.

Can a phenomenon-in-potentia be said to exist and not to exist?

In any case can a human eradicate their goals and purposes? — 3017amen

Of course. Simply stop thinking about anything that way.

Is that Nihilism?

The subject has compelling evidence for the existence of god. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The subject has compelling evidence for the existence of an experience that s/he conceptualizes as 'seeing god". Alternatively s/he could conceptualize it as "realizing Buddha Nature", "seeing the unity of Atman and Brahmin", " becoming who I am" "Satchitananda" (being, consciousness, bliss), "attaining enlightenment", "rejoining the Ocean of Being", 'wandering in the dreamtime". "playing in the Akashic fields" " strawberry fields forever" "lucy in the sky with diamonds" " McArthur's Park is melting in the dark" " it's all too beautiful" and so on ad infinitum.

Is that Nihilism? — 3017amen

No. It doesn't have anything to do with nihilism.

"Can a phenomenon-in-potentia be said to exist and not to exist?"

What a fabulous question. I'm going to think about that for a while. The short answer could be that Being is both a noun and a verb

In the meantime consider the following. Time is required for Humans to exist thus a metaphorical bullet point:

1. During procreation a seed is planted.
2. Time is required for its development
3. Existence requires time
4. Time is existence.

What do you call a human being at conception other than a fetus?

Is it a person, half person, human being in the making... ?

Just a strange analogy using words and concepts...

Why not? Couldn't one have a goal of Nilhilism?

Why not? Couldn't one have a goal of Nilhilism? — 3017amen

If you stop thinking about anything in terms of goals and purposes you're not going to have a goal of nihilism. You'd have to have "I have a goal of nihilism" as a conscious thought in order to have a goal of nihilism. But obviously that's not the case if you're not thinking of anything in terms of goals or purposes.

Do you have an example of a half-lie ? — 3017amen

You’re doing halfway well in this topic.

I'm not quite following that. Are you now thinking that a person can think about nothing at all and still exist?

That's what I'm left with if you say that humans have no goals.

Help me out there...

Don't be afraid of yourself. Join the party. It's okay to be scared; if you're scared say you're scared !!!

Speaking of half-truths, actually you halfway joined the party already LOL!!

That's what I'm left with if you say that humans have no goals. — 3017amen

You only have a goal if you think about something in terms of a goal. Are you saying that every single thought you have is in terms of a goal?