Answering Atheist Noncognativism

 




Ooberman on CARM writes:

From a site I can't link, but you can paste and google it.

1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
1. Primary Attributes
2. Secondary Attributes
3. Relational Attributes.
2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)
7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

The person making the argument on Tremblays site has a very fine write-up on the possible counters, but I'd like to see what the Christians here think. I know it's mostly Fundi's in this section, but maybe a few reasonable people will see this thread.

p3 is a false statment:

primary attributes:

a. ground of being
b. eternal
c. necessary (ontologically and logically)
d. primary condition or "first cause" to all existing things.
e. Transcendental signified.
f. personal itself.




4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)

false statement because it assumes 3 which is a false statement.

5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.


  arbitrary assumption disproved above
6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

based only upon false assumptions and arbitrary assertions of ideology.

7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

false statement. I just demonstrated it's false hood. what he really mans to say is "concept invalid given my language game."

I don't play his language game.

The person making this argument doesn't demonstrate the truth of it and doesn't even attempt supporting it. to be true p3 would have to be true of all God concepts. he doesn't bother to show that it's true of one.

He says he got the original argument from an atheist website. goggling the argument above it wound up on the iron Chariot site.  So it 's the work of amateurs who don't know philosophy.

That site is the atheist answer to Josh McDowell. Some atheist dude said "let's show these fundies that they have no monopoly on cheap apologists! we can up a dogmatic site that pretends to have all the answer but is really just a bunch of high school kids giving superficial crap from their book reports, too."

an exaple of the stupidity of the people doing the Iron Chariots site.

here's what he think via negitiva means.

"A. The Non-Accomplishments Of Negative Definitions.

In this section, the insufficiency of negative definitions to provide meaning to the god-concept will be discussed, which will provide further understanding toward the need of specificity in identification.

The theist, in attempt to provide meaning to the term “God”, may object to this argument by saying that we know “God” to be infinite, limitless, and immaterial. These descriptions, however, amongst others, do nothing to help their position. This is because these descriptions are not identifying in nature—they are “negative definitions”.

A negative definition is a definition which tells us what something is not, rather than what something is. It is a description which critically lacks specificity—not telling us what is meant by a term that we may apply any secondary traits, but informing us only of what it is not, which doesn’t help our situation at all.

For example, consider the following identification:

“I am not George W. Bush, Jr.” "

I. not via negativia, not even close to what it means

II. those are not negative definitions

saying "God is eternal" is not saying "God is not temporal." its' a positive affirmation of something God is.

III. since he doesn't know what via negativia means (it doesn't' man attributes like eternal, all knowing all power, all present) then he can't argue with it or say that it's false because he has no idea what he's talking about.

IV. mystical theology is way over this guys' head I wouldn't even bother to discuss it with him. But the fact of it is accepting that God is beyond our understanding is not the same as saying that he has no attributes.

these are very clear and definite positive attributes and this guy in doing is not only showing off his ignorance but merely demonstrating that his own concept is fallacious.


there's more, he makes it worse. he supossedly spikes out any future come back by suppossedly showing that defintiopn is impossible:

On The Impossibility Of A Definition


We’ve established that the word “God” is meaningless, and thus that atheism is a justified position.

we did, how? by misusing the term via negativina and asserting something we don't bother to demonstrate, such as p3 in the original argument.

This is, however, only until a theist should provide a valid definition. While I will not leave out the possibility of a god-believer doing so, George Smith does provide an argument against the prospect when considering the secondary characteristics theists would wish to apply to the term “God” thereafter.

here he says "a believer might have a definition" after saying there can't be a definition, then he claims someone esle preempts the possibility how do they do that? by asserting without proving that there can't be one and arguing with secondary qualities, which are not essential to a definition.


Smith develops his argument by noting many of these character traits that are applied to the term—specifically omnipotence and limitlessness. Considering these attributes, he argues, defining “God” is an impossible task.

I've already disproved those fallacious assertions that are just based upon ignorance and using the definitions wrongly.
but even so most theologians don't' use the omnis now anyway.



Why? Smith argues that this is because of the consequences of a thing’s identity. To have an identity, Smith observes, is to be presented with various limits. Things one simply cannot do by virtue of its nature. However, since a “God” is supposed to be both omnipotent and limitless, a valid definition for the term itself is unattainable.


The God os process theology and the Tillich concept of the Super-essential Godhead (being itself) are not open to this charge because they don't require an "identity" in the same way that an individual man does.

all of his arguments leave out the two major moves of theology in the 20 century he obviously doesn't even understand them.