@Banno

If you know you can just tell us rather than ducking what Cheshire said.

Yeah, only I have, at length, elsewhere, and often. I've seen no indication from you that it would be worth my while to do so again, here. But if you want to start a thread on Davidson, I'll join in.

@Banno
Nonsense! Could it be that unmediated shows Cheshire correct.

You sneaky man!

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7043/davidson-on-the-very-idea-of-a-conceptual-scheme/p1

I'm interested. How does this link to Davidson?

@Banno
And it takes 27 pages to explain one word!
Go engage with Cheshire.

You know he might be using unmediated in a normal way.
As you well know what he implied anyway.

I'm interested. How does this link to Davidson? — Banno

The one time I take a moment to avoid serving an undercooked argument. Davidson's quote indicates the experience of the world is evidence of the world as it is; so a theistic experience should be no different. I think people are experiencing something they are calling God and it indeed comes from the world.

"God talk is a Platonic discussion, interesting but useless."

Similar to how some Mathematicians talk about the existence of abstract object and the beauty of the equation, interesting but useless. However, that said, their mathematical inventions/concepts may have some use for us in the real world. So could this ontological argument have some use for someone? Maybe so.

OK, we might be able to build something on that.
Here's the quote, in full:

In giving up dependence on the concept of an uninterpreted reality, something outside all schemes and science, we do not relinquish the notion of objective truth -quite the contrary. Given the dogma of a dualism of scheme and reality, we get conceptual relativity, and truth relative to a scheme. Without the dogma, this kind of relativity goes by the board. Of course truth ot sentences remains relative to language, but that is as objective as can be. In giving up the dualism of scheme and world, we do not give up the world, but reestablish unmediated touch with the familiar objects whose antics make our sentences and opinions true or false.

SO you are counting god as amongst "the familiar objects whose antics make our sentences and opinions true or false"?

@Banno

Bingo bingo! Shocker!

Unmediated means unmediated.

What a sneaky method of time wasting,obfuscating and meandering to suit your debate/monologue.

We know your game,and it ain't fair dinkum moite!

Not interested in your passive - aggressive schtick.

@Banno
You mean you don't like it up ya!

If you don't like it,don't give it out.

And do be a bit more honest man. We are after all talking about truth. Truth is not your agenda or personal dogma.

SO you are counting god as amongst "the familiar objects whose antics make our sentences and opinions true or false"? — Banno

I'm considering god in the same sense.

That's interesting.

So for a theist presumably god is as familiar as that chair over there... and yet not so for others.

Not sure where to go next. My temptation is simply to say the theist is wrong, but that's a bit trite.

There is a possible world in which god does not exist. — Banno

The unstated premise is "God created everything. "

Your statement above is a contradiction of that premise.

↪Cheshire That's interesting.

So for a theist presumably god is as familiar as that chair over there... and yet not so for others.

Not sure where to go next. My temptation is simply to say the theist is wrong, but that's a bit trite. — Banno

Did I miss a double spacing memo? In this case it follows the theist and others experience similar effects, but don't ascribe the same meaning to it. I don't have any good examples really worked out, but maybe the protective instinct that gets an atheist to step back from a cliff edge is the voice of God to a theist. Both experience a regulating effect to whatever emotions drove them there.

It's all based around the construction of the Alpha Zero AI. They made a pretty good documentary about it. But, the main point was that in order for the machine to teach itself; it needs two players and a judge. Maybe, the human mind works in a similar way.

As a footnote it would justify what we are doing here. In the sense that dialectic discussion increases intelligence.

Indeed; so if there is a possible world in which god does not exist, than god did not create everything.

Indeed; so if there is a possible world in which god does not exist, than god did not create everything. — Banno

Oh. I get what you're asking. Can God create a rock he cannot lift? It's the "Is God subject to the rules of logic" question. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

It's the "Is God subject to the rules of logic" question. — Hanover

Well, no. IF god is not subject to the laws of logic, there is no point in having a conversation about him - that's the problem with @Bartricks threads.

Rather, if the notion of god leads to inconsistencies, then either, the notion of god cannot be instantiated (atheism) or the notion of god needs to be reconsidered.

You're saying omnipotence limits God's omnipotence because he's limited in that he can't be limited.

We can either say omnipotence is a self contradictory term or that omnipotence doesn't include the ability to defy logic.

I go with choice B.

It's a useful conversation for me, since it addresses the biggest issue with silentism, that is denies that certain sorts of conversation say anything, instead pointing to what they do.

And I say we don't need to choose. Silence.

But that's too simple, don't you think?

Silence is a choice, but I'm not certain what you're getting at. It's too cryptic for me.

EDIT: This conversation about God with an odd interplay with linguistic philosophy. As if a theist sees any meaning in this. Yes, silence, but largely because nothing you raise means anything remotely relevant to the theist. It's as much blather to him as his God is to you.

Maybe that's what you're getting at, beats me

Maybe that's what you're getting at, — Hanover

Well, yes:

God is supposed to be a necessary being. Something is necessary if it is true in every possible world.

There is a possible world in which god does not exist.

Hence, god is not a necessary being. — Banno

How better to show that it is blather than to drag it out for hundreds of posts?

Useful and interesting; I consider it an achievement. I'm not certain if silentism is a reference to sociological activism or just the general principle of not arguing without hope of some benefit to someone somewhere.

It is funny that all/many of these arguments were at one point the deck being stacked in favor of theism. It seems the bias to win made them untenable in the long run.

How better to show that it is blather than to drag it out for hundreds of posts? — Banno

There are really solid empirical and scientific reasons not to believe in God. There are also really good personal reasons to believe in God.

The syllogisms that appear to prove God or deny God's existence seem unperausive to me, contrived attempts to prove something indubitably, in a way nothing else (other than the self maybe) is proved. We don't need an epistemology that renders certainty in other contexts, so I don't know why we reach for it with God.

That is to say, it's not hundreds of posts this argument has lasted, but thousands of years and neither side will lay to rest the issue with a few word mental puzzle.

Let the believers believe and the nonbelievers not. If the question bothers you, ask yourself what you're lacking that leaves it open in your mind.

Let the believers believe and the nonbelievers not. — Hanover

I beg to differ on one peripheral account, though of course anyone is free to believe whatever.

Until the diverse preachers indoctrinators proselytizers chill out, they should expect others asking them to justify their claims. In case they impose their faiths on others, politics, have their faiths interfere in other peoples' lives, whatever social matters, etc, then they should expect all the more. (Incidentally, Leviticus 20:13 came up recently elsewhere; responses varied.)

If they just want to exchange stories, or they keep their religious faiths to themselves, then sure, no problemo.

@jorndoe

The secularists and scientismists do exactly the same public preaching.

They both need to butt out!

, they have to justify their claims proportionally and relevantly.

"scientismists" :D A new word added to my vocabulary

Science is descriptive, morals are prescriptive.

@jorndoe

Secularists prescribe all sorts of rules and "morals". That's what the legal system is.

Science is prescriptive in that it elevates "reason" over any other human truths. That's a moral judgement.