The definiton of words

[none]

came across this gem,
"God can't be defined because words like atheism can have multiple meanings"
Is this a fallacy? if so which one?
The claim was buried in a wall of text, if you must know
I figure some if not most words have multiple meanings

 

[skepticalbip]

Is that similar to claiming that a desert can't be defined because the word ocean can have multiple meanings?

 

[Bronzeage]

It could be called a classification error, but I think it's just a nonsense statement.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

came across this gem,
"God can't be defined because words like atheism can have multiple meanings"
Is this a fallacy? if so which one?
The claim was buried in a wall of text, if you must know
I figure some if not most words have multiple meanings

Atheism simply means someone who does not believe in god(s). And that can mean any type of God.
Of course one can be an atheist as regards such god concepts as the omni-everything creator Gods but agnostic as regards the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And here we slip into theist word games. But that blade can cut both ways.

- - - Updated - - -

It could be called a classification error, but I think it's just a nonsense statement.

Its a contrived slippery slope argument.

 

[none]

Yeah its annoying besides the fact of a wall of text every time he posts
Another strategy is to not admit faith is belief without evidence and to say that faith without evidence is blind faith, not sure if that is readily classified as a dodge
I explain empiricism is faith based on evidence and faith is a belief with out evidence, but he continually makes the shift that he doesn't have blind faith never admitting faith is belief without evidence
He'll admit blind faith is faith without evidence but never address faith, as if it is different
I would like to know how to reasonably address this nonsense but ultimately definitions could be arbitrary
Not sure how to proceeded, not sure how to frame this behavior to assess it pragmatically

 

[Bronzeage]

Atheism simply means someone who does not believe in god(s). And that can mean any type of God.
Of course one can be an atheist as regards such god concepts as the omni-everything creator Gods but agnostic as regards the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And here we slip into theist word games. But that blade can cut both ways.

- - - Updated - - -

It could be called a classification error, but I think it's just a nonsense statement.

Its a contrived slippery slope argument.

It's more of a scrambled syllogism. Atheism is a word with many meanings, God is a word, therefor God cannot be defined.

What is actually submitted to us is a delicate act of Sophistry. A disputable statement is made, followed by an undisputed statement. It gives the appearance and form of an argument, but is nothing of the sort.

Sophistry is making quite a comeback these days.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Another strategy is to not admit faith is belief without evidence and to say that faith without evidence is blind faith, not sure if that is readily classified as a dodge
I explain empiricism is faith based on evidence and faith is a belief with out evidence, but he continually makes the shift that he doesn't have blind faith never admitting faith is belief without evidence
He'll admit blind faith is faith without evidence but never address faith, as if it is different
I would like to know how to reasonably address this nonsense but ultimately definitions could be arbitrary
Not sure how to proceeded, not sure how to frame this behavior to assess it pragmatically

I think faith also depends on evidence, even faith in God. But in this case the main type of evidence comes from the faith one has in their family and community. But that's also true for my faith in the general theory of relativity. I'll never understand the mathematics behind it. But I've learned empirically that those who do understand it on that level can be relied on. That said, the difference between this type of faith and the faith which religions espouse is that the former becomes stronger with more evidence whereas the latter seems to get stronger with less evidence. That is to say you need very strong faith when confronted by evidence to the contrary. In fact Martin Luther claimed that faith is bestowed by God and there is no way to obtain it otherwise. But that's what happens when you try to build a belief on a foundation of absolutes. You end up with two definitions and a lack of communication.

 

[bigfield]

I think faith also depends on evidence, even faith in God. But in this case the main type of evidence comes from the faith one has in their family and community.

Your faith in something depends on evidence, but your faith in something is also a form of evidence? Why not just leave faith out altogether and form conclusion based on evidence?

But that's also true for my faith in the general theory of relativity. I'll never understand the mathematics behind it. But I've learned empirically that those who do understand it on that level can be relied on. That said, the difference between this type of faith and the faith which religions espouse is that the former becomes stronger with more evidence whereas the latter seems to get stronger with less evidence.

If one's faith in God is strengthened by a lack of evidence then one cannot pretend that faith depends on evidence.

That is to say you need very strong faith when confronted by evidence to the contrary. In fact Martin Luther claimed that faith is bestowed by God and there is no way to obtain it otherwise. But that's what happens when you try to build a belief on a foundation of absolutes. You end up with two definitions and a lack of communication.

Scientists such as theoretical physicists win the trust that people bestow upon them by supporting their claims with empirical evidence and mathematical proofs that can be checked by anyone who has the ability and desire to do so.

Churchmen win the trust of people by repeating the same unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claims endlessly. People believe them--and indoctrinate their children in turn--because of a flaw in human cognitive ability that causes us to fall for such a trick. The notion that "faith is bestowed by God" is just one more of those unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claims.

 

[Bronzeage]

...
Another strategy is to not admit faith is belief without evidence and to say that faith without evidence is blind faith, not sure if that is readily classified as a dodge
I explain empiricism is faith based on evidence and faith is a belief with out evidence, but he continually makes the shift that he doesn't have blind faith never admitting faith is belief without evidence
He'll admit blind faith is faith without evidence but never address faith, as if it is different
I would like to know how to reasonably address this nonsense but ultimately definitions could be arbitrary
Not sure how to proceeded, not sure how to frame this behavior to assess it pragmatically

I think faith also depends on evidence, even faith in God. But in this case the main type of evidence comes from the faith one has in their family and community. But that's also true for my faith in the general theory of relativity. I'll never understand the mathematics behind it. But I've learned empirically that those who do understand it on that level can be relied on. That said, the difference between this type of faith and the faith which religions espouse is that the former becomes stronger with more evidence whereas the latter seems to get stronger with less evidence. That is to say you need very strong faith when confronted by evidence to the contrary. In fact Martin Luther claimed that faith is bestowed by God and there is no way to obtain it otherwise. But that's what happens when you try to build a belief on a foundation of absolutes. You end up with two definitions and a lack of communication.

You have confused evidence and testimony.

 

[Treedbear]

I think faith also depends on evidence, even faith in God. But in this case the main type of evidence comes from the faith one has in their family and community.

Your faith in something depends on evidence, but your faith in something is also a form of evidence? Why not just leave faith out altogether and form conclusion based on evidence?

No. But their faith might serve as evidence for me. My faith can only serve as evidence for someone else. When it comes down to it faith is a measure of the probability that something is true. But as I state further on, we are dealing with two definitions of faith. I'm not using the term in the way the church would have it.

But that's also true for my faith in the general theory of relativity. I'll never understand the mathematics behind it. But I've learned empirically that those who do understand it on that level can be relied on. That said, the difference between this type of faith and the faith which religions espouse is that the former becomes stronger with more evidence whereas the latter seems to get stronger with less evidence.

If one's faith in God is strengthened by a lack of evidence then one cannot pretend that faith depends on evidence.

As I said we have two definitions that lead to this same confusion. The church would say "one's faith in God is strengthened by a lack of evidence" (or rather one who has not seen and yet believes is blessed), whereas I contend that faith used for everyday situations (like faith in the truth of the theory of relativity) does rely on evidence. Just not complete understanding.

That is to say you need very strong faith when confronted by evidence to the contrary. In fact Martin Luther claimed that faith is bestowed by God and there is no way to obtain it otherwise. But that's what happens when you try to build a belief on a foundation of absolutes. You end up with two definitions and a lack of communication.

Scientists such as theoretical physicists win the trust that people bestow upon them by supporting their claims with empirical evidence and mathematical proofs that can be checked by anyone who has the ability and desire to do so.

Which most of us can't or don't do, but we still manage to have faith in their truth. We trust them for the most part because we have faith in others who trust them. It's a matter of probability.

Churchmen win the trust of people by repeating the same unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claims endlessly. People believe them--and indoctrinate their children in turn--because of a flaw in human cognitive ability that causes us to fall for such a trick. The notion that "faith is bestowed by God" is just one more of those unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claims.

Most religious believers don't have the time or inclination to delve into that for themselves. It's a faith of convenience. Again, this is evidence-based type of faith. Not what the church calls faith, but what actually motivates people to believe in them. But when you get into arguments with theists they use the two definitions interchangeably.

- - - Updated - - -

...
You have confused evidence and testimony.

And testimony is never used as evidence??

 

[Speakpigeon]

came across this gem,
"God can't be defined because words like atheism can have multiple meanings"
Is this a fallacy? if so which one?
The claim was buried in a wall of text, if you must know
I figure some if not most words have multiple meanings

It's a simple non sequitur in that it doesn't follow from the premise that words like atheism can have multiple meanings that the word "god" can't be defined.

Even the following is a non sequitur:
The word "god" is like the word "atheism"
All words like "atheism" have multiple meanings
All words that have multiple meanings can't be defined
Therefore the word "god" can't be defined

This is because from the premise that the word "god" is like the word "atheism" it doesn't follow that it has multiple meanings.

Perhaps this is what he means:
The word "god" has multiple meanings
All words that have multiple meanings can't be defined
Therefore the word "god" can't be defined

Of course the 2nd premise is disputable. You will find many words in dictionaries that have different senses and therefore meanings and yet have a propoer definition for each of those meanings. So it all comes down to whether any word in any dictionary has "many" meanings. Well, his argument is that "atheism" has many meanings so this is one. And yet you'll find proper definitions of it in most dictionaries.

So the argument is just very bad as it implies that many words that have proper definitions in most dictionaries can't be defined.
EB

 

[fast]

came across this gem,
"God can't be defined because words like atheism can have multiple meanings"
Is this a fallacy? if so which one?
The claim was buried in a wall of text, if you must know
I figure some if not most words have multiple meanings

God can't be defined but for a different reason. He may have meant the word, "God," and I'll address that momentarily, but first, we cannot define lamps, God, or cats. Words are what have definitions, so although lamps, God, and cats cannot be defined, the words, "lamp," ,"God", and "cat" can be and have been defined.

Since the word, "God" does have a definition, it is clearly false that the word cannot be defined. The definition of a word is a function of how its collectively used by fluent speakers in a language.

 

[Juma]

came across this gem,
"God can't be defined because words like atheism can have multiple meanings"
Is this a fallacy? if so which one?
The claim was buried in a wall of text, if you must know
I figure some if not most words have multiple meanings

God can't be defined but for a different reason. He may have meant the word, "God," and I'll address that momentarily, but first, we cannot define lamps, God, or cats. Words are what have definitions, so although lamps, God, and cats cannot be defined, the words, "lamp," ,"God", and "cat" can be and have been defined.

Since the word, "God" does have a definition, it is clearly false that the word cannot be defined. The definition of a word is a function of how its collectively used by fluent speakers in a language.

The definition of the word "god" is the letters g,o and d in that order.

 

[fast]

God can't be defined but for a different reason. He may have meant the word, "God," and I'll address that momentarily, but first, we cannot define lamps, God, or cats. Words are what have definitions, so although lamps, God, and cats cannot be defined, the words, "lamp," ,"God", and "cat" can be and have been defined.

Since the word, "God" does have a definition, it is clearly false that the word cannot be defined. The definition of a word is a function of how its collectively used by fluent speakers in a language.

The definition of the word "god" is the letters g,o and d in that order.

No, that would be the composition of the letters that make up the word. Really?

If you want to learn what the word means, you can listen to how the word is used by fluent speakers. For an actual definition, you can consult an authoritative source, like a dictionary. One that reads and comprehends the definition can glean from it the lexical meaning of the word.

 

[Juma]

The definition of the word "god" is the letters g,o and d in that order.

No, that would be the composition of the letters that make up the word. Really?

If you want to learn what the word means, you can listen to how the word is used by fluent speakers. For an actual definition, you can consult an authoritative source, like a dictionary. One that reads and comprehends the definition can glean from it the lexical meaning of the word.

You mean the definition of the concept that the word refers to.

a word can have multiple meanings, thus the word is not its meanings/references.

For each of these meaning you could have a definition (if you are lucky).

 

[fast]

No, that would be the composition of the letters that make up the word. Really?

If you want to learn what the word means, you can listen to how the word is used by fluent speakers. For an actual definition, you can consult an authoritative source, like a dictionary. One that reads and comprehends the definition can glean from it the lexical meaning of the word.

You mean the definition of the concept that the word refers to.

a word can have multiple meanings, thus the word is not its meanings/references.

For each of these meaning you could have a definition (if you are lucky).

Concepts don't have definitions. Referring terms refer to their referents. Nonreferring terms don't have referents. Both referring terms and nonreferring terms have definitions and lexical meaning.

Some words are ambiguous and thus have more than one meaning. You are correct in that a word is not its meaning or reference. Words have both meaning and definitions.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Words are labels used to communicate. Even simple words like up and down need a reference frame to be useful. Take a word out of its reference frame and it will make no sense, unless making no sense is your point, but in which case you still need that sense-making reference frame for it to make no sense.

It's been suggested that one of the side benefits of human language was to replace physical grooming and therefore enhance group size and cohesion. Considering all the useless talking we do that makes sense.

The degree to which a person properly applies or misapplies these labels in their communication tells the listener whether the speaker is worth listening to.

 

[Treedbear]

...
He'll admit blind faith is faith without evidence but never address faith, as if it is different
I would like to know how to reasonably address this nonsense but ultimately definitions could be arbitrary
Not sure how to proceeded, not sure how to frame this behavior to assess it pragmatically

The problem you're having has to do with recognizing that he does have faith. Only it's faith in what he's been told rather than direct evidence. What I was saying before. "Blind faith" is like "free will". Neither exist. Both are idealizations of what are otherwise useful concepts. Both faith and the will are reasonable processes having understandable motivations. Faith as the church would have it is a distortion that's supposed to connect us with a spiritual world of existence. By characterizing it as "blind" you simply play into this irrational train of thought. It all goes back to Plato and the idealized world of perfection which only the anointed one's are privy to.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No, that would be the composition of the letters that make up the word. Really?

If you want to learn what the word means, you can listen to how the word is used by fluent speakers. For an actual definition, you can consult an authoritative source, like a dictionary. One that reads and comprehends the definition can glean from it the lexical meaning of the word.

You mean the definition of the concept that the word refers to.

a word can have multiple meanings, thus the word is not its meanings/references.

For each of these meaning you could have a definition (if you are lucky).

A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

EB

 

[another1]

Words come from MMM. That was the first thing said by intelligent humans. Then they added MM MM MMM, which meant dodge those snakes. Then MMM MMMM MM MM, which meant keep the snakes away from the baby.

MMM was used as a song. Hey there are mammoths over there, please don't let them trample the baby = MM M MMMM M MMMM M M. Then they worked other natural sounds and pitch changes into the MMM's, to express more complex stuff like "don't swing that burning stick near the babies" aka MMMM agh mmm mm ahhh MMM ugh ugh. singing did become the origin of words, not the other way around. No doubt about it.