Constructive criticism - Minimal facts method

[sp1ke0kill3r]

I have yet to meet anyone who has succeeded in defining him to my satisfaction

Him?

One can not speak of a distinction without assuming knowledge and thereby definition.


Indeed, the question is whether there is anything at all to define. Following in the tradition of great thinkers does nothing for you. Great thinkers aren't immune from error.
And I'm not sure how anything you have said in response explains why you "would merely like to ...speak, albeit falsely, about God."

I don't see how one can speak of something that is unintelligible or make any judgments
about whether its concept is satisfactory or not. The concept, if you can call it that
is meaningless. No different than any other unintelligible sound. This might be clearer if we substituted lf8ghfx everywhere you use the word God.

As I said initially, we can ask if such (an) undefineable Being is truly meaningful, but people will answer that question in a very subjective and intersubjective manner.

How people answer is not a criteria for answering the question.
meaningfulness is an epistemic judgement tied precisely to definability.
The world learned at Hiroshima that Einstein's answers weren't just "very subjective and intersubjective". Neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were necessary to know this.
That just made it undeniable.

Clearly, you have some definition with which you evaluate other definitions and find them inadequate. Underlying your thoughts on this is exactly the idea that God is some fundamental referrant.
And it hardly matters if you distinguish between natural and supernatual or not. You could just as easily posit that God is the most fundamental referrant of reality qua reality or the most fundamental ground of being etc. If God is undefinable then he is indistinguishable from nothing. The concept has no epistemic warrant by your own description.
The only question is whether you choose to recognize that.

[robrecht]

Him?

One can not speak of a distinction without assuming knowledge and thereby definition.

If you're asking me whether I think God is a sexual being in the sense of being either male or female, of course, I do not.

Indeed, the question is whether there is anything at all to define.

Let me know when you come up with an answer to that question. Personally, I do not think God is a thing that can be defined, at least not to my satisfaction.

Following in the tradition of great thinkers does nothing for you. Great thinkers aren't immune from error.

Of course not. As I already said, "Of course, we could all be wrong, and in fact I'm sure we are in very many respects."

And I'm not sure how anything you have said in response explains why you "would merely like to ...speak, albeit falsely, about God."

Once again, because I am not much impressed by the application here of a distinction between natural and supernatural.

I don't see how one can speak of something that is unintelligible or make any judgments
about whether its concept is satisfactory or not. The concept, if you can call it that
is meaningless. No different than any other unintelligible sound. This might be clearer if we substituted lf8ghfx everywhere you use the word God.

You may consider God to be meaningless, if that is indeed what you are trying to say here, but others disagree with you about that. Subjectivity.

How people answer is not a criteria for answering the question.

I don't think I was giving criteria on how people must answer this question, just observing that people do in fact answer a very subjective and intersubjective manner.

meaningfulness is an epistemic judgement tied precisely to definability.

Obviously not for those who believe in a God who cannot be defined.

The world learned at Hiroshima that Einstein's answers weren't just "very subjective and intersubjective". Neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were necessary to know this.
That just made it undeniable.

Of course, I never said that Einstein's theories were very subjective, did I? But I have sometimes use the example of a singularity to illustrate what I mean by saying that God cannot be defined. Within Einstein's theory, there are limits to what can be explained. All the more so with reference to God and creation.

Clearly, you have some definition with which you evaluate other definitions and find them inadequate. Underlying your thoughts on this is exactly the idea that God is some fundamental referrant.

No, it seems you are still misinterpreting what I said.

And it hardly matters if you distinguish between natural and supernatual or not.

It matters a great deal to me.

You could just as easily posit that God is the most fundamental referrant of reality qua reality or the most fundamental ground of being etc.

Indeed I could do that, but that is not what I said here.

If God is undefinable then he is indistinguishable from nothing.

Yes, in many respects, certainly in terms of knowledge of objects.

The concept has no epistemic warrant by your own description.
The only question is whether you choose to recognize that.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by 'epistemic warrant' here. If you are perhaps referring to proofs for the existence of God, I do not believe that the existence of God can be proved, at least not to everyone's satisfaction. Is that what you mean my 'epistemic warrant'?