Him:
God" is an empty term since 'god' is incomprehensible, so it is impossible to say what 'he' is.
If it is possible to say under what circumstances an indicative sentence is either true or false, whether or not we know whether it is true or false, or even whether or not we could actually show that it is true or false, then it has a sense. But, then, to do that would be to repeat that sentence, so we would be no further forward. [This is partly why Wittgenstein said that what can be shown (by the use of language) cannot be said.]
In this case, with putatively indicative sentences about 'god', which use (but which do not merely mention) the word "god", this cannot be done since the word "god" is an empty term, and will forever remain an empty term. That is why any attempt to say what such sentences supposedly tell us cannot work, since they contain an empty term, "god".
No matter what you do or say, this insurmountable obstacle cannot be overcome, and that is because of the supposedly unique nature of 'god' -- 'he' is incomprehensible, so the word "god" cannot ever cease to be empty.
Quote: Me:
And if so, how do you claim one goes about deciding weather a sentence is true or not?
Him:
In ordinary circumstances, this would be done, for example, by the usual empirical means we have available to us (but there are other ways, too). So, it's not a matter of who decides, since the latter means are socially determined, not individualistically legislated.
But, once more, with putatively indicative sentences about 'god', which use (but which do not merely mention) the word "god", this cannot be done since the word "god" is an empty term, and will forever remain an empty term.
Hence, we could not even begin to say under what circumstances such sentences could be true or false without also using the empty term "god" in the process.
Once more, we hit another brick wall.
Quote Me :
And do I understand correctly that a term will be empty unless 1)it is comprehensible to me 2) I can tell 'what' it is 3) It must be qualified by other terms none of which may be self-referential?
HIM :
I did not say that a word must be comprehensible to you.
And, for what look like ordinary words, there are many things that can decide whether or not any one of them is empty or not.
In this unique case, however, with respect to "god", the above not apply. In this case, because 'god' is inherently incomprehensible to human beings, the word "god" will forever remain empty.
So, no matter what you say, we would still have no idea what you are banging on about when you use the word "god".
Of course, if you were to deny that 'god' is incomprehensible, then you would be referring, not to 'god', but to '*god*', and so you'd be no further forward.
Which is why when you say things like "God is F, G and H...", we are no further forward, and neither are you, since any such sentence is devoid of sense since it contains an empty word, namely "god".
'God' is essentially incomprehensible to you, so not even you know what you are banging on about when you use the word "god".
But, it is not possible to say whether Christian theism is true since Christian theism involves the use of indicative sentences about 'god', and as such they are devoid of sense, since they contain the empty word "god".
'God' is essentially incomprehensible to you, so not even you know what you are banging on about when you use the word "god".
This means that:
Whatever you tell us about 'god' will involve you saying things like this, "God is F, G and H...", and since this sentence contains an empty term, namely "god", we are no further forward.
And it is an empty word, since 'god' is essentially incomprehensible to you and to the rest of us.
Once more: There is no way for you out of this hole.
It's kinda like Ayers ignostisism or theological noncognitism but with some crucial, small differences.
Thanks for the help! God bless!
