I'm not ignoring the argument. I'm pointing out that the argument begs the question. I asked how ordinary language use and logic can show that there can be unknown objects and your response was "by our very inability to detail or describe objects we don't know.". So you're saying that there are objects we don't know about because we can't describe the objects that we don't know about. You've assumed the conclusion.

No, there might be unrecognised objects out there-- the claim not that any particular unknown object existed, but rather that they could exist.

I'm saying that unrecognised objects can exist, unless subjects having perfect knowledge of all objects is necessary. You are hoisted on your own petard of doubt. Unless subjects necessarily recognise everything, unrecognised objects can exist-- subjects must have infallible knowledge of objects for your claim to obtain.

Unless subjects necessarily recognise everything, unrecognised objects can exist. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And the claim is that objects just are things which are recognised as such. Therefore every object is necessarily recognised.

Sapientia's counter to this is that ordinary language use and logic can show that objects aren't just things which are recognised as such.

So your response is a non sequitur.

For sure, but that is what gets you in a pickle-- if every object is recognised, then unknown objects are impossible. Every object is, by you own admission, necessarily recognised and so known by a subject. So, if your claim is to obtain, then every object must be necessarily known to a subject. There can be no unknown objects.

So Sapientia's counter is right. If we are using our ordinary language of knowledge, which admits that subjects don't necessarily know everything, then it is shown that all objects aren't necessarily recognised.

We can, of course, reject this ordinary language. But, if we do, it amounts to saying that subjects must necessarily know everything-- that unknown objects are impossible.

So Sapientia's counter is right. If we are using our ordinary language of knowledge, which admits that subjects don't necessarily know everything, then it is shown that all objects aren't necessarily recognised. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is what I'm questioning. How can the realist use ordinary claims to justify their metaphysics? Their very premise is that the fact-of-the-matter – the existence and nature of objects – is independent of whatever we might say or believe. Their very premise is that the things we say and the things we believe might be false. We might say that there is a cup in the cupboard and we might believe that there is a cup in the cupboard but it might nonetheless be the case that there isn't a cup in the cupboard. And so, by the same logic, we might say that unknown objects exist and we might believe that unknown objects exist but it might nonetheless be the case that unknown objects don't exist.

Hence this ordinary language use "justification" of realism is a contradiction. The realist, if he is to be consistent, can't use the fact that most people assert and believe realism as a defence of his position.

For the very reason that false beliefs depend on the independence of things. Take the cup in the cupboard. What is true if we are wrong about that? Well, not what we thought-- the cup and the cupboard-- but something else.

So what is this something else? If we think there is a cup and a cupboard, then we won't have a bar of any other idea. We will reject there is any other object-- it will be unknown and we are unable to detail it. The absence of the the cup and the cupboard is the object(s) we cannot admit.

And so, by the same logic, we might say that unknown objects exist and we might believe that unknown objects exist but it might nonetheless be the case that unknown objects don't exist. — Michael

Indeed, but this is only to say that unknown objects might not exist, which does not preclude (as you were arguing) that they can. All you've done is shown it's possible that subjects know everything-- something I've (and Sapientia) never denied.

The realist, if he is to be consistent, can't use the fact that most people assert and believe realism as a defence of his position. — Micheal

But that's not what the realist is asserting his position on. "Ordinary language" is not a popularity argument, but a logic one. It's to say: "If we are using this language, this meaning, then X is true."

The case is not made on the number of people who use it, but rather than what we are saying if we do not-- in this case, failing to use the "ordinary language" amounts to denying there can be unknown objects.

Indeed, but this is only to say that unknown objects might not exist, which does not preclude (as you were arguing) that they can. All you've done is shown it's possible that subjects know everything-- something I've (and Sapientia) never denied. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I've addressed this. The claim is that objects just are things which are recognised as such. Therefore there cannot be unknown objects. Sapientia claimed that ordinary language use and logic can show that this isn't the case; that there can be unknown objects. But given that the realist's claim is that the existence of objects is independent of what we say and believe it is inconsistent to use what we say and belief to justify the claim that there can be unknown objects.

For the very reason that false beliefs depend on the independence of things. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is false. You don't need for things to exist for the claim "things exist" to be false. In fact, you need for things to not exist for the claim "things exist" to be false. That's straightforward logic.

Take the cup in the cupboard. What is true if we are wrong about that? Well, not what we thought-- the cup and the cupboard-- but something else.

So what is this something else? If we think there is a cup and a cupboard, then we won't have a bar of any other idea. We will reject there is any other object-- it will be unknown and we are unable to detail it. The absence of the the cup and the cupboard is the one object(s) we cannot admit. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

But that's not what the realist is asserting his position on. "Ordinary language" is not a popularity argument, but a logic one. It's to say: "If we are using this language, this meaning, then X is true."

The case is not made on the number of people who use it, but rather than what we are saying if we do not-- in this case, failing to use the "ordinary language" amounts to denying there can be unknown objects.

This makes no sense. According to the realist the existence of the object in the cupboard has nothing to do with the sounds I speak, the symbols I write, or the ideas I have. Therefore he can't use these latter things to prove (or justify) the former.

Beware the tangled roots.

I've addressed this. The claim is that objects just are things which are recognised as such. Therefore there cannot be unknown objects. Sapientia claimed that ordinary language use and logic can show that this isn't the case; that there can be unknown objects. But given that the realist's claim is that the existence of objects is independent of what we say and believe it is inconsistent to use what we say and belief to justify the claim that there can be unknown objects — Michael

The realist isn't making a claim about an object there. They are making a claim about logic. Stating that "objects are independent" is not an argument that any object exists. It doesn't make any claim about what exists in the world. No inconsistency. You just aren't paying attention to what they are talking about.

This is false. You don't need for things to exist for the claim "things exist" to be false. In fact, you need for things to not exist for the claim "things exist" to be false. That's straightforward logic. — Michael

Not true. If the cupboard is empty, then there must be the object of the empty cupboard. If someone is to be wrong about the cup, the absence of the cup needs to exist. Your problem is you don't think beyond the immediate claim and whether someone has presented you evidence for it.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. — Michael

If I think the cup is in the cupboard, then I do not know the object of the empty cupboard. I will be unable to detail the cupboard is empty-- if the thought or suggestion arises, I will dismiss it as false for I know there is a cup in the cupboard. I will not recognise the object of an empty cupboard. It is unknown to me.

If someone is to be wrong about the cup, the absence of the cup needs to exist. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is just nonsense. Treating the non-existence of a thing as a thing that exists? If this is the sort of thing that you're resorting to then there's not much point in continuing.

Furthermore, the type of existence that unrecognised objects are said to have is not of this "absence" kind. So what you need to show is that an unrecognised non-absence thing has to exist for the claim "there is a cup in the cupboard" to be false. And that's simply not the case.

But it does exist-- there exists an absence of a cup in the cupboard and that presence (non-absence, if you will) is why I'm wrong about the cup being in the cupboard. It's not nonsense, but the requirement of existence if my belief about the cup is to be wrong.

You don't know that. Unrecognised objects are not said to be anything because they are unknown. There may, indeed, be unknown cup-absent cupboard. All it takes is for one to exist and for people not to realise.

I don't see how logic can be used to say anything about existence, other than to comment on things that we happen to experience and know(the empirical record), which is only part of the picture, logically, while only being derivable via an unknown and possibly independent source.

Thinking of the cupboard, I can imagine a pin on the shelf in the cupboard, with ethereal beings dancing on its head. I can only imagine and therefore believe, that ethereal beings conceptually derived from the empirical record are dancing there. I can't believe that any other kind are as they would be inconceivable to me, but I can't rule them out either, even though I don't know what I would be ruling out. So I can't say that unknown objects do, or don't exist. I can only comment on objects that could possibly be conceived of and derived from the empirical record.

Indeed I can't claim that empirically derived objects exist, or not, because I don't know what it means to exist, or that I can conceive, or have knowledge of anything that exists.

How can language use and logic be used to show that there can exist objects which haven't been recognised as such by a subject? — Michael

Because it is evident from the way in which we ordinarily use the word "object" that the meaning of the word doesn't imply a contradiction when used to talk about an object which hasn't been recognised as such by a subject. The contradiction only occurs when the meaning of the word has been superficially altered, redefined, as part of an anti-realist agenda. It is a man-made, self-imposed problem, and one which is best resolved by rejecting the premise.

It seems to me that the very premise of realism is that the existence of objects is independent of semantics, which makes using the latter to prove the former a contradiction. Indeed the realist would say that independent objects exist even if ordinary language use implied idealism. — Michael

Yes, the existence of objects is independent of semantics. But surely in order to have a sensible discussion, we must know what we're talking about, and I'm appealing to ordinary language use as an alternative and superior means of best defining key terms such as "object", rather than starting with the hidden premise that an object, by virtue of being an object, must be recognised as such by a subject - which is suspect to say the least.

Or are you just saying that you can use logic to derive the realist's conclusion from some self-evident or otherwise justified premises? Then what are those premises? — Michael

I am rejecting the implication in the claim that I was originally responding to, namely that it would be a contradiction for there to exist an object which has not been recognised as such by a subject. Of course, by implication, that also means that I'm saying that it is possible.

I am doing so on the basis that there is nothing present in the meaning of the word "object", as ordinarily understood, which renders the aforementioned an impossibility. Therefore, the claimant must be relying upon some special, extraordinary, and, it seems, convenient definition, which I see no good reason to similarly adopt.

Before talking about whether God exists, one must define what God is?

I would argue thought about God rivals that of nothingness (and wholeness) and The Great Other. God as beyond concept.

God as beyond concept. — matt

So God is beyond words? Makes for a short thread.

So God is beyond words? Makes for a short thread. — Banno

If we are to go the Scholastic route, then God is beyond all human propositions. The most we can manage with are analogies and metaphors, as well as certain metaphysical properties (infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, etc). We can know the existence of God through metaphysics - the essence of God comes from revelation.

How we know something exists without knowing anything about it makes for a puzzle. Perhaps we can get away with saying that God exists, and we all know what this means intuitively but cannot express it in exact words. God is transcendent, radically Other, and the ground and source of Being. That's about as much as we can say.

So God is beyond words? Makes for a short thread. — Banno

It is kind of ironic that many theist use the argument that "God" is beyond words/human comprehension in defense of their position when it does more to damage it then support it. If it is true that "God" is beyond words, then it also means that it is a given that even if theists spends their entire life devoted to knowing and understanding God/God's will they don't know anything more about God then the rest of us, and reading the bible won't tell you anything more about God then reading comic books.

While it isn't well documented in discussions with people from societies that have (or had) beliefs in polytheistic gods, it was discovered that they too had an understanding or dealings with monotheistic beliefs instead of it being completely alien to them as it is often believed. However for them monotheistic beliefs can only believed by bat sh*t crazy people since it contains so many obvious problems that only a lunatic (or perhaps someone who comes from a society run by lunatics) could ever allow themselves to believe in such things. Because of this issue, many polytheistic/pagan based societies tend to try to ... purge .. themselves of monotheistic beliefs (whether such beliefs come from an individual or group) out of fear of what might happen if they allow such madness to spread. And ironically enough they often felt that they were doing those that they got rid of (either through death or exile) a 'favor' because they themselves felt that they would rather be put out of their misery then have to live with such madness as well as endangering their community and the one's they love.

Before talking about whether God exists, one must define what God is? — Corvus

David Bentley Hart: 'one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.' From The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss

Whatever is truly ‘transcendent’ is also ‘beyond existence’ - that’s what ‘transcendent’ means. So strictly speaking God doesn't exist - even if God is real, he/she/it is of a different order to whatever it is that exists. See God does not Exist, Bishop (!) Pierre Whalon.

It is kind of ironic that many theist use the argument that "God" is beyond words/human comprehension in defense of their position when it does more to damage it then support it. If it is true that "God" is beyond words, then it also means that it is a given that even if theists spends their entire life devoted to knowing and understanding God/God's will they don't know anything more about God then the rest of us, and reading the bible won't tell you anything more about God then reading comic books. — dclements

According to the theistic religions, God chose to reveal him/her/itself - which is what the 'sacred writings' (i.e. The Bible, which really just means 'book') convey. It contains accounts and testimonies of what people are believed to have witnesses. Within those domains of discourse there are perfectly coherent accounts of 'the encounter with the Divine', even if it's not something that can be validated by so-called empirical methodology.

Pretty much anyone can make up what they think what 'God' might be like but that doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. And the word 'transcendent' is just a fancy word meant to convey the idea of an existence different then our own, but since we don't really understand what 'existence' is it is a given that anyone talking about something being 'transcendent' is more likely than not just pulling it out of their backside then from any kind of credible source.

And everything you wrote about how theistic religions being about to support their beliefs through their own metrics can be said of any other religion/ideology/system of beliefs whether it is believe by the population at large or someone trying to chew through the straps on their straight jacket. However to use such 'evidence' as some kind of proof to anyone other then those that believe it already is an appeal to antiquity fallacy since it assumes the person hearing such arguments doesn't need to validate such beliefs because they are what defendant was brought up (or perhaps chose to at some point) to believe and they should also believe it as well without question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Young Quaker Podcast.

That's about as much as we can say. — darthbarracuda

It's already too much.

It's already too much.
-Banno

I more or less agree, or at least I do anyways. :smile:

Your post reminds me of the following quote that I heard a very long time ago:

“Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, and yet he will be making gods by dozens.”
-Michel de Montaigne

Would you rather talk about nothing?

Perhaps we can speculate about God based on our intuition and perceptions of life and reality. Some of us have had closer encounters with life (and death) than others and can therefore share their spirituality. Where the more we come to accumulate knowledge, the better we can speculate about God.

Absolute wisdom is an attribute of God. The more you gain wisdom, either by existential crisis or by observing life itself(or by both of them), more you work yourself towards truth.
This is what spirituality intend to achieve.

The more you gain wisdom, either by existential crisis or by observing life itself(or by both of them), more you work yourself towards truth. — ahmad bilal

What is "truth" in this context?

It doesn't seem to be "a statement of fact", since if god is beyond words - Is truth beyond words?

I would have thought wisdom a worthy goal in itself. Why add truth?

At least we can talk about nothing.

:grin:

Hence the Quaker podcast. That's how to talk about God.