Debating "God" is an incoherent term [Mod Edit]

Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Debating "God" is an incoherent term [Mod Edit]

This is a reply to another post of Todangst's wherein he claims that the term "God" is incoherent. (This particular post of his was brought to my attention by my friend Sodium. Sodium hasn't seen any decent replies to Todangst, so I offer this one.)

Todangst starts out by telling us that he’s shown that certain terms having to do with immateriality are “necessarily incoherent”. As it turns out, he hasn’t shown this at all. (See my short essay here to see why.) He now makes two attempts to show that the word “God” is incoherent. The first attempt involves showing that the concept of a disembodied person (i.e. a soul) can only be defined negatively and is thus incoherent. Since on most versions of theism, God is a disembodied person, those versions of theism would be incoherent if Todangst is right. The second attempt involves showing that various attributes belonging to God contradict themselves or observed features of the universe.

But neither of Todangst’s attempts are successful. I’ll begin with the first. Todangst says that the concept of an incorporeal person (i.e. a soul), like that of immaterial substance, “contains an internal contradiction: to be a person is to exist as something, some thing, not 'no thing'.” Now it may be that souls don’t exist. Many contemporary analytic philosophers think they do. Most naturalistic philosophers don’t believe in them. But leaving aside the reasons for thinking that they exist, is the concept itself really incoherent?

No. Some analytic philosophers think that the concept of a soul may involve locative, hyperspatial entities. On these definitions, a soul would be located in a n>3D region of space. And other philosophers believe that the concept of a soul involves spatial entities that exist in zero-dimensional regions of spacetime. But for the sake of argument, I’ll assume with Todangst that the concept of a soul involves nonspatial entities. Thus, the concept of a soul is defined as follows:

'x is a soul' means by definition '(i) x is spatially nonlocative, and (ii) x is capable of consciousness'.

The main reason Todangst says the concept is incoherent is because he thinks that it can only be defined negatively. Well, even if Todangst were right about this (he’s not), this doesn’t imply that the concept is unintelligible. Certain denizens of the universe are defined in only negative terms and we have a perfectly intelligible conceptual grasp on them. For example, a point in space is defined as something lacking spatial dimensions. We could never in principle get a clear mental image of what such entities are supposed to look like (anything we imagine is extended). We can’t think of any positive attributes they have (mass, color, shape, etc.) This doesn’t mean the concept is incoherent.

In any case, Todangst hasn’t even shown that such definitions, of necessity, are negative. One might say that points in space nevertheless have positive attributes like being a place possibly occupied by point-sized objects. Similarly, one may say that a soul has the positive attributes of being conscious, being possibly embodied, being substantival. So Todangst’s first attempt to show that “God” is incoherent doesn’t even get off the ground.

His second attempt is even worse. He thinks that God is incoherent because any event that God “judges” is fundamentally something that God “Himself” planned out in minute detail. On this view, God causes absolutely everything. There is no room for random events or genuinely free actions. Every movement of your limbs, for example, is controlled by God. So really, God is judging nothing but that which he’s already fully determined to happen, and as a consequence millions of people are being roasted in hell for things they had no choice about. A very evil and incoherent God indeed. The problem with this is that Todangst is arguing only against a particular, highly qualified Calvinist or Thomistic picture of God. I would join him in rejecting such views. And so would the vast majority of theistic philosophers. If Todangst really wants to say that the Calvinistic view of God provides an argument for the incoherence of the concept of God simpliciter, he’ll be forced (oddly) to defend highly controversial theological frameworks for understanding what God is like. He has to argue that Aquinas was correct; he has to argue that Calvinist interpretations of passages in Romans are correct. Given the swirling black hole nature of theological disputes, I doubt that Todangst is thrilled about the prospects of playing the theologian. In which case, he should re-title his post to read: The Calvinist’s use of “God” is an incoherent term. To which the response is, most theistic philosophers already knew that.

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
I think the title of a

I think the title of a thread should reflect that a discussion is sought-after.

As it stands the title is an assertion. I can understand changing the title if the original was also an emphatic statement.

I find the current title unsatisfactory:

1. It implies Gavagai has a view that he disagrees with.

2. It is dogmatic.

 I would find it accepable to change the title to something that suggests either an opinion, a debate or includes a reference to the original essay.

That is my opinion Eye-wink 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
I was going to repsond

I was going to repsond gavagai but there is little point as all that really needs to be said has been said by todangst.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote:

Cernunnos wrote:

I think the title of a thread should reflect that a discussion is sought-after.

It does now. It didn't before. 

Please stick to the conversation or I'll just close the thread entirely, seeing as it should be listed as a response to my essay in the first place.

And why haven't I done that already? Because it really doesn't belong there either... Gav's 1st part of his response concerns the supposed coherency of 'souls', not 'god' and the second part of his 'response' isn't even a response to my actual argument at all, which I proved by posting what my argument actually states...

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Yeah...my "theist" badge was

Yeah...my "theist" badge was removed a while back for absolutely no reason.  So the thread title shenanigans don't surprise me at all.  Kinda silly though.  It's just the internet.  Fundamentalists will be fundamentalists, God or not. 


MrRage
Posts: 892
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote:

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Just to clarify something... points (on a graph) have one dimension... correct?

Points on a graph (or in R2 for the math oriented) are considered to be 0-dimensional. But, they do have positive definitions, namely as members of the set R2.

{Edit: grammar}


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: CrimsonEdge

MrRage wrote:
CrimsonEdge wrote:
Just to clarify something... points (on a graph) have one dimension... correct?
Points on a graph (or in R2 for the math oriented) are considered to be 0-dimensional. But, they do have positive definitions, namely as members of the set R2. {Edit: grammar}

 

Glad everyone can see the basic blunder in his analogy. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
evil religion

evil religion wrote:
gavagai wrote:

'x is a soul' means by definition '(i) x is spatially nonlocative, and (ii) x is capable of consciousness'.

Errrr isn't "spatially nonlocative" a negative definition?

So really you are then left with your n>3D souls. Which is a rather intersting position and one which would seem to be incompatible with a whole range of laws of physics. For starters if souls can affect the normal 3D universe, which they must be able to do, then there must be somekind of energy exchange between "thier space" and our space, no change can occur without an exchange of energy of some kind (this is why energy and time are complimentary and linked properties in quantum theory) so where does this energy come from? Or where does it go? If soul in "soul space" affects our space then surely this violates the conservation of energy?

 

Holy Sh** Thanks Rev Devlin for pointing me to this thread, I would not have known that such a discussion existed here, had you not.  

Firstly, ER, of course n>3 spatial entities are the only ontologies left. And frankly as long as you, as Gavagai intimated, drop the Calvanist baggage and contend this with a non-apologetic theology (alchemy for instance) you'll find no dispute.

 Answering the questions you asked is not difficult, just a bit unconventional, for example you asked:

" if souls can affect the normal 3D universe, which they must be able to do, then there must be somekind of energy exchange between "thier space" and our space,"

So how many degrees are there to our space? If it's 4 the above is impossible, but if it's more, and Kaluza swept in the case for 5, string theory makes the case for many more, then there can be little doubt, it remains possible, and the only question is how.

Further you asked: 

 "no change can occur without an exchange of energy of some kind (this is why energy and time are complimentary and linked properties in quantum theory) so where does this energy come from? Or where does it go? "

Well, rather than go out on a limb too far, yet, I'll just point to the graviton. But don't hastily conclude that something so tiny and fleeting could not account for a major influence on the physical, gravitons have strength in numbers and the presumable ability to cross dimensionality which to the classical mind seems, what was that word again.. oh yeah, immaterial.  I actually don't think gravitons exist, but they are well known and defined enough to suit the purpose of this point, which is, COE doesn't rule out a soul insofar as your claiming, there are means. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Holy Sh** Thanks Rev Devlin for pointing me to this thread, I would not have known that such a discussion existed here, had you not.

Firstly, ER, of course n>3 spatial entities are the only ontologies left. And frankly as long as you, as Gavagai intimated, drop the Calvanist baggage and contend this with a non-apologetic theology (alchemy for instance) you'll find no dispute.

Answering the questions you asked is not difficult, just a bit unconventional, for example you asked:

" if souls can affect the normal 3D universe, which they must be able to do, then there must be somekind of energy exchange between "thier space" and our space,"

So how many degrees are there to our space? If it's 4 the above is impossible, but if it's more, and Kaluza swept in the case for 5, string theory makes the case for many more, then there can be little doubt, it remains possible, and the only question is how.

Further you asked:

"no change can occur without an exchange of energy of some kind (this is why energy and time are complimentary and linked properties in quantum theory) so where does this energy come from? Or where does it go? "

Well, rather than go out on a limb too far, yet, I'll just point to the graviton. But don't hastily conclude that something so tiny and fleeting could not account for a major influence on the physical, gravitons have strength in numbers and the presumable ability to cross dimensionality which to the classical mind seems, what was that word again.. oh yeah, immaterial. I actually don't think gravitons exist, but they are well known and defined enough to suit the purpose of this point, which is, COE doesn't rule out a soul insofar as your claiming, there are means.

Thank the flying spaghetti monster, he works in mysterious ways Wink

Gravitons, no no no there existences highly questionable at best, try quantum entanglement it would suit your purposes much better,

But assuming extra dimensions, which looks promising, automatically labeling the unknown as the spaghetti monster dimension, is quite irrational until some knowledge can be ascertained about their property's, of which there is virtually none at the mo