Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Jun 20, 2022 1:09 pm

People care more about whether God is meaningful, than whether God exists.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Jun 20, 2022 1:11 pm

"God is a string of letters G-o-d.
This string of letters exists.
Therefore God exists."

Technically it's true, but it's meaningless.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Mon Jun 20, 2022 1:13 pm

A lot of people would say that whether God exists or not is not meaningless. Leibniz and myself included.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Jun 20, 2022 1:17 pm

You don't have a problem with God existing, yet being meaningless?

What's more important, Existence or Meaning?
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Mon Jun 20, 2022 1:19 pm

Whatever the case, whatever meaning I ascribe to God, your retort cannot be "God does not exist."
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Mon Jun 20, 2022 1:23 pm

Having established that, when you say

Urwrongx1000 wrote:"bueifwboa"


it evokes nothing. When I say "God," it evokes something. That which is evoked, by virtue of being evoked, also exists. Patently.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:15 am

If a string-of-letters is meaningless, then what it refers to maybe non-existent. That is up to the authority of the speaker.

So what you said, begs a question. Why does one string-of-words evoke emotion from you, but others do not? Why is one string meaningful and another not?
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:39 am

Regardless of why, "bueifwboa" evokes nothing in either of us, God does (in both). This, for one thing, puts into doubt your assertion that meaning is solely the province of the speaker.

Further, what God evokes doesn't necessarily have to be emotion. That something, anything, is evoked, is enough. That which has been evoked, by virtue of being evoked, patently exists.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:45 am

origami wrote:Regardless of why, "bueifwboa" evokes nothing in either of us, God does (in both).

You presume too much here.


origami wrote:This, for one thing, puts into doubt your assertion that meaning is solely the province of the speaker.

Further, what God evokes doesn't necessarily have to be emotion. That something, anything, is evoked, is enough. That which has been evoked, by virtue of being evoked, patently exists.

You would need to have authority on 'God' to assert what God refers to as existent. It's highly-subjective. Atheists will define God as "non-existent" insuchthat 'God' refers to Nothing.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:48 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
origami wrote:Regardless of why, "bueifwboa" evokes nothing in either of us, God does (in both).

You presume too much here.


So "bueifwboa" does evoke something in you?

Urwrongx1000 wrote:You would need to have authority on 'God' to assert what God refers to as existent.


I am not sure what you mean by "authority," but certainly, by the very fact that it is refered to, it exists.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:48 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Atheists will define God as "non-existent" insuchthat 'God' refers to Nothing.


It then would be the case that they are either confused or lying.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:30 am

You presumed that God means something to me. I keep my mind open. I want to hear your definitions and arguments, first. "Pure love" is not convincing to me.

Without obvious definitions, people don't know to what, if anything, God refers to. This is why there is a schism between Atheism and Theism.

Why is an Atheist lying about God, whereas Theists are not?
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:36 am

I presumed only that God evokes something in you. Given the way you use "God" in sentences, it is evidently true.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:50 am

God could mean Something. God could mean Everything. God could mean Nothing.

I haven't ruled out any possibilities. It seems to me that you ruled out the possibility of Nothing, of the non-Existent.

How often does God refer to a real thing? A thing you can touch, smell, or see? What does God look like?
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:52 am

God exists. You have already agreed to that. If God were only a string of letters, that would already not be nothing. We have further established that God evokes something in you beyond the string of letters, refers to something. That something then, by virtue of being something, exists.

I am not so much ruling out the possibility as pointing out the fact.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:30 am

The point of God existing is not the same as a string of letters existing.

You mentioned "pure love" in the OP. Do you have any other offerings as to the meaning of God?
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:35 am

In order to discuss the meaning of it, it has to exist. By your admission, on the count of being a string of letters and on the count of evoking enough meaning in you to produce coherent sentences, God does exist.

Debating the meaning is one thing. It would be an unrelated thing to discussing whether God exists. Which, patently, God does. As shown here and by your patent admission.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:45 am

God does exist, as a string of letters, is beside-the-point.

I return to my original argument. If God exists, but is meaningless, then it doesn't matter whether God exists or not.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:46 am

But then, if God referred to nothing but a string of letters, you would not be able to discuss him so coherently.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:47 am

It is this the sense in which, if you continue to persist that God can not exist, or refer to nothing, you are either confused or lying.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:50 am

People give meaning to God retroactively. In that way, it is an attempt to make Something out of Nothing.

That phenomenon is unique and interests me the most. In that way, God is a purely Creative endeavor, "pure creation" rather than "pure love".
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:51 am

It cannot be an attempt to make something out of nothing because, in order for meaning to be ascribed to it retroactively, it must exist, so must be something.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:52 am

God can refer to Nothing if somebody asserts as such, like an Atheist tends to do.

Atheists might agree that God exists...as a string-of-letters. But it's a red herring argument. That's not what is intended or meant, when discussing or arguing the "Existence of God".

The greater implication is that "God Exists...As A Thing". It is precisely that thing, the intention, that matters. And that is highly subjective.


It requires greater, much more expansive definitions, as you said, something like "pure love". But you need to go much further.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:53 am

People ascribe meaning (retroactively or not) to God, but not to random strings of letters, and in the case of random strings of letters, not the same meanings they ascribe to God, unless as an explicit substitute for the word God. This suggests that what they are ascribing meaning to already refers to something, beyond the fact of being a string of letters.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:55 am

Anything it does refer to, evidently, is not nothing, by virtue of being something.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron