Theological non-cognitivism posits the improbability of articulating; quintessentially, what god is in propositional logic. I conversed with a bishop not too long ago and the query he stated was: do you believe in god? My response was: I don’t understand the question.
In elementary phases of the English language, we learn propositional phrases contain truth values—they possess true and false statements; however, cannot contain both simultaneously. An example would be:the moon is made up of yogurt. Albeit, this statement is false, it still posits a truth value; it can be proven true or false. However, to state: god exists is problematic—for god cannot be defined in comprehensible terms; thus, cannot withstand scrutiny under the guise of truth values.
With the entire linguistic acrobatics theologians purport, if their claims cannot pass the elementary stage of propositional logic, the conversation is dead before it starts. By the way, our conversation only lasted five minutes; the bishop didn’t know what god is either; the gavel landed!
You're very right. This is what's problematic with the multiplicity of religious variegation's. All the denominations can't be right; yet, they purport their own spin on doctrine with claims to the truth.
I'm sure you've all already seen the 6 min. clip on Dan Dennett "The Evolution of Confusion"?
The full lecture (from 2009 Atheist Alliance conference) is here:
This is what I've been thinking all along: the concept of god doesn't make sense.
It was mentioned on the Atheist Experience podcast that the word "god" is one of the few nouns we commonly use that doesn't have an referent. Even fictitious entities are usually described in terms things that we already know (such as the moon made of yogurt) and their truth or falsehood can therefore be verified.
That is what disturbs me with theologians; they believe because something is a word, it becomes verifiable. Only in the phantasmal does it possess meaning...whatever that is.
I watched a video on Dr. William Lane Craig discussing the absurdity of the flying spaghetti monster(which is referent, praised be his saucy strands and meaty balls!) he argued that the FSM was an unrealistic concept because being made of matter and energy it could not exist before the creation of the universe(and by extension mass and energy)
The obvious concern I have is this: if god is not a material figure (matter) and can't do work (ex: creating the universe) then it can't exist, at least by the google definition "have objective reality or being"
A Message transmitted by Terry Meaden from His WARPOLE the FSM:
Not only is Dr Craig very unintelligent, but he is deluded.
Although he knows it not, Craig is an atheist too.
He must think that the FSM really is made from edible spaghetti and meat balls.
He needs to be informed that the believer's FSM is in fact an incorporeal image of the divine nebulous monster, who is located in immaterial pasta-heaven---just as a Jesus crucifix in Craig's house or church is only a material image of a supposedly immaterial Jesus (to say nothing of the ethereal holy ghost) that they worship so much.
Like many others, I like eating a plate of spaghetti and meat balls, but in doing so I am certainly not eating any part of his worshipful and regal pastafarian our lord exquisite the flying spaghetti monster----a.k.a His WARPOLE the FSM.
The holy FSM is far distant, deep inside his noodliness's nirvana where he is preparing articulate wrath for doubters like Craig who is nothing other than an atheist as to the affirmed divinity of the FSM.
Really, I haven't laughed so hard a good while! ;-)
I'll have to get you a beer one of these days.