Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Harbal]

Neither term has any objective reality, you say. So it doesn't matter. Nothing is objectively morally good, and nothing is morally bad. There is only what one wants and the instrumental connection between that and what you choose to do. You just said so. That's your definition.

Care to revise?

When I say that something is morally good, it means I judge it to be morally good.

That's circular. You can't define "good" by using the word "good."

Sorry, I keep forgetting that you don't know what the word, "good", means.

[FlashDangerpants]

When I say that something is morally good, it means I judge it to be morally good.

That's circular. You can't define "good" by using the word "good."

Sorry, I keep forgetting that you don't know what the word, "good", means.

He doesn't know what any word means except in so far as he looks at his internal pictures of the words and knows those. He has defined language in such a way that if two people think different things about a thing, then they aren't using the same word at all. If he thinks pancakes are a breakfast food and you don't, then you now cannot be speaking the same idea when you say breakfast as he hears when you say it to him.

For mister Can, all communication is vanity, nothing is sayable. Pity him.

[Immanuel Can]

...depending upon speaker "the creater of the universe" could be a reference to Jehova, or to Allah, or to 70 million milk maids...

If that's what you mean, then it's even more clear that Atheists don't mean "God" when they say "God."

They don't mean Allah, they don't mean milk maids, or the Pan spirit, or Zeus, or Odin, or... and they mean something different from the Judeo-Christian "I AM," too. All these conceptions of "god" have different characteristics, wills, origins, intentions, revelations, ethics...and so on. So now, it's even more clear than before, not less, that "God" can be used by different speakers to refer to different entities.

I'm at a loss to see how this observation in any way contradicts what I said. Instead, it seems to reinforce it greatly.

But maybe you can explain more clearly.

What is the problem with the full text of what I wrote?

Nothing. I simply avoid reproducing the entire thing because a) it's already in the message you sent, and b) we haven't finished with the key part of the first question yet. So I'm including the part of the message that I think needs our present attention. Let's focus.

So you say there are many understandings of the concept "God." That is correct. And most of them, nearly all of them, are bound to be wrong: because if any one of them is right, then the others automatically become, to some extent, less accurate or even downright untrue. For example, if the Atheist is right, then ALL of the Theistic, Pantheistic, Panentheistic, Animistic, and so forth, versions of "God" are wrong. But if one of them's right, then Atheism's wrong, and so are all the others...

Either way, the term "God" stands in need of being defined by anybody who wants to talk about that concept. And the Atheist certainly doesn't think of "God" or "gods" in the way any of the other views do.

[Immanuel Can]

When I say that something is morally good, it means I judge it to be morally good.

That's circular. You can't define "good" by using the word "good."

Sorry, I keep forgetting that you don't know what the word, "good", means.

Yes, I know it's winsome for you to pretend you do. But your Subjectivism denies any objective content to that word.

At least an Objectivist can be wrong about the concept of "the good": you can't even get to the point where you're close enough to be "wrong," let alone "right." Something with no objective reality can't be right or wrong.

[Harbal]

Something with no objective reality can't be right or wrong.

But that's what I've always said. Morality is not subject to objective reality. There are no objective facts that you can call upon to suggest otherwise.

[Immanuel Can]

Something with no objective reality can't be right or wrong.

But that's what I've always said. Morality is not subject to objective reality. There are no objective facts that you can call upon to suggest otherwise.

That's what you've said. So you can't now say that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, slave-owners, rapists, etc. are "wrong." You can only say that at this minute, you happen not to like them. But for you, any objective moral condemnation is utterly unthinkable.

But I don't believe that. And I don't think you believe it, either. It think you know they were not merely wrong, but foully evil, as well. So perhaps you're just a better person than your philosophy would warrant you to be. But if you still do have a moral concern about them, then according to your own Subjectivism, you're not being rational.

[FlashDangerpants]

If that's what you mean, then it's even more clear that Atheists don't mean "God" when they say "God."

They don't mean Allah, they don't mean milk maids, or the Pan spirit, or Zeus, or Odin, or... and they mean something different from the Judeo-Christian "I AM," too. All these conceptions of "god" have different characteristics, wills, origins, intentions, revelations, ethics...and so on. So now, it's even more clear than before, not less, that "God" can be used by different speakers to refer to different entities.

I'm at a loss to see how this observation in any way contradicts what I said. Instead, it seems to reinforce it greatly.

But maybe you can explain more clearly.

What is the problem with the full text of what I wrote?

Nothing. I simply avoid reproducing the entire thing because a) it's already in the message you sent, and b) we haven't finished with the key part of the first question yet. So I'm including the part of the message that I think needs our present attention. Let's focus.

So you say there are many understandings of the concept "God." That is correct. And most of them, nearly all of them, are bound to be wrong: because if any one of them is right, then the others automatically become, to some extent, less accurate or even downright untrue. For example, if the Atheist is right, then ALL of the Theistic, Pantheistic, Panentheistic, Animistic, and so forth, versions of "God" are wrong. But if one of them's right, then Atheism's wrong, and so are all the others...

Either way, the term "God" stands in need of being defined by anybody who wants to talk about that concept. And the Atheist certainly doesn't think of "God" or "gods" in the way any of the other views do.

But I'm asking questions about how different people can be said to hold dissimilar semantic content for the same concept?

[Immanuel Can]

What is the problem with the full text of what I wrote?

Nothing. I simply avoid reproducing the entire thing because a) it's already in the message you sent, and b) we haven't finished with the key part of the first question yet. So I'm including the part of the message that I think needs our present attention. Let's focus.

So you say there are many understandings of the concept "God." That is correct. And most of them, nearly all of them, are bound to be wrong: because if any one of them is right, then the others automatically become, to some extent, less accurate or even downright untrue. For example, if the Atheist is right, then ALL of the Theistic, Pantheistic, Panentheistic, Animistic, and so forth, versions of "God" are wrong. But if one of them's right, then Atheism's wrong, and so are all the others...

Either way, the term "God" stands in need of being defined by anybody who wants to talk about that concept. And the Atheist certainly doesn't think of "God" or "gods" in the way any of the other views do.

But I'm asking questions about how different people can be said to hold dissimilar semantic content for the same concept?

And you're supplying cases that show that not only is that the case, but that it's worse than you even originally said. So you're shooting your own case to pieces. If you want to say that everybody has exactly the same conception of "God," how does complaining that there are too many different religions, each with their own version (to say nothing of Atheism's version, too) help your case?

It doesn't. It completely undermines what you seem to want to argue.

[FlashDangerpants]

Nothing. I simply avoid reproducing the entire thing because a) it's already in the message you sent, and b) we haven't finished with the key part of the first question yet. So I'm including the part of the message that I think needs our present attention. Let's focus.

So you say there are many understandings of the concept "God." That is correct. And most of them, nearly all of them, are bound to be wrong: because if any one of them is right, then the others automatically become, to some extent, less accurate or even downright untrue. For example, if the Atheist is right, then ALL of the Theistic, Pantheistic, Panentheistic, Animistic, and so forth, versions of "God" are wrong. But if one of them's right, then Atheism's wrong, and so are all the others...

Either way, the term "God" stands in need of being defined by anybody who wants to talk about that concept. And the Atheist certainly doesn't think of "God" or "gods" in the way any of the other views do.

But I'm asking questions about how different people can be said to hold dissimilar semantic content for the same concept?

And you're supplying cases that show that not only is that the case, but that it's worse than you even originally said. So you're shooting your own case to pieces. If you want to say that everybody has exactly the same conception of "God," how does complaining that there are too many different religions, each with their own version (to say nothing of Atheism's version, too) help your case?

It doesn't. It completely undermines what you seem to want to argue.

You understand that neither of us is a ____, but both of us know what a ____ is, and we use the word ____ism without needing to be ____ists to be referring to the same concept of ____ism that a ____ist would be using? That's how we would be able to understand it when she says "I am a ____ist"? That this works equally well for any of those things which describes neither of us such as Panentheism or Animism or Islam?

You get that communication was made possible by shared concepts with similar semantic content, and that without similar semantic content the basic sentence "I believe ____" wouldn't be useful if the ____ in question was only explicable to persons who also believe ___?

Your current model of language and meaning is unworkable forthe purpose of communication. That we are able to converse shows that you are mistaken.

[Immanuel Can]

But I'm asking questions about how different people can be said to hold dissimilar semantic content for the same concept?

And you're supplying cases that show that not only is that the case, but that it's worse than you even originally said. So you're shooting your own case to pieces. If you want to say that everybody has exactly the same conception of "God," how does complaining that there are too many different religions, each with their own version (to say nothing of Atheism's version, too) help your case?

It doesn't. It completely undermines what you seem to want to argue.

You understand that neither of us is a ____,

Are you going to respond to that very obvious problem in your own theory? After all, you're the one who's been pointing it out.

[FlashDangerpants]

And you're supplying cases that show that not only is that the case, but that it's worse than you even originally said. So you're shooting your own case to pieces. If you want to say that everybody has exactly the same conception of "God," how does complaining that there are too many different religions, each with their own version (to say nothing of Atheism's version, too) help your case?

It doesn't. It completely undermines what you seem to want to argue.

You understand that neither of us is a ____,

Are you going to respond to that very obvious problem in your own theory? After all, you're the one who's been pointing it out.

Enlighten me

[Immanuel Can]

You understand that neither of us is a ____,

Are you going to respond to that very obvious problem in your own theory? After all, you're the one who's been pointing it out.

Enlighten me

Hmmm...Look, I'm trying, but at this moment, I'm beginning to wonder if I can... Sincerely.

Okay, go back to my last message. I think it's about as clear as one could make it. If there are 50 versions of "god," as you claim, then it certainly isn't the case that "god" means the same thing to all of them.

[FlashDangerpants]

Are you going to respond to that very obvious problem in your own theory? After all, you're the one who's been pointing it out.

Enlighten me

Hmmm...Look, I'm trying, but at this moment, I'm beginning to wonder if I can... Sincerely.

Okay, go back to my last message. I think it's about as clear as one could make it. If there are 50 versions of "god," as you claim, then it certainly isn't the case that "god" means the same thing to all of them.

I've seen you use the word "referent" correctly. You must at least understand the distinction therefore between a sense and reference? All that is happening there is that there are competing referents for the sense. The semantic properties of a concept are what we call its sense.

So there's one sense for 'God' as in the Deity who created the universe, but there's muiltiple available referents for that concept... However, there's only one referent for the 'God' that Christians believe created the universe, that's a slightly different sense as well, being effectively a name. So when speaking of these things with clarity we tend to clarify which conception (sense) of God is relevant to the discourse. The purpose of such clarifications is to ensure that participants are all working with the same sense, because only if people are working with the same semantic content are they communicating without error.

When you graduate to reading Frege, you will learn about this going the other way, with multiple senses for the same referent. It's gonna blow your mind. Sincerely

[promethean75]

1000002184.jpg

[Immanuel Can]

...there's one sense for 'God' as in the Deity who created the universe,

Who has this one "sense" you mention? Theists, yes...but not Atheists. And not Jains, or Hindus, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or animists, or Yorubans, or the ancient Greeks or Romans...

...but there's muiltiple available referents for that concept...

Not quite. It's very clearly not even the same concept. A "god," to the Greeks, was not the creator of the universe. Even Zeus was a contingent and limited being. He sprang from the head of Chronos. Likewise, the gods of the Norse...all doomed to perish at Ragnarok. So if the concept of "a god" that the people have is a being that is created, limited and fated, that's certainly not at all the same concept as what Christians mean by "God." The Christian God is eternal, the First Cause of all things, the Creator of the universe, the Heavenly Father of His Son, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer...none of that is assumed by the other traditions.

...only if people are working with the same semantic content are they communicating without error.

Correct. But they are not operating with the same concept. They're using the same word, but not defining it the same way.

I'm not seeing what point you are supposed to be making.