Non-Cognitive statements

[Age]

What do you think, imagine, or envision the 'God' word refers to, exactly?

Once this becomes known, through a discussion, then I can proceed further in proving, through a Truly philosophical discussion, how this 'Thing' actually does exist.

IMO—and I believe also for many people—that thing called God is an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being.

The first two are very, very explainable. The third, however, seems like an absolute impossibility. But, again, like absolutely all things it all depends on and is relative to 'the observer'.

Now, when you say and use the word 'supernatural' what are you meaning and/or referring to, exactly?

See, if when one uses that word and they are meaning or referring to some thing above, beyond, or a part from 'Nature', or just being 'natural', Itself, then, to me, this is incomprehensible. For how could absolutely any thing be above, beyond, or just not natural?

But, if when one uses that word they are meaning and/or referring to just some thing with more abilities/power than what is normally perceived as 'natural', then that might be another completely different thing.

If you have a different definition, I would certainly like to hear it.

The words omniscient and omnipotent work and fit in perfectly with my definition for the God word, the word 'supernatural' not so much so. But, again, and as always, this all depends on what and how one, "themself", is defining words here. Which, by the way, cannot be known until clarity is sought out, and obtained. Exactly like you are doing here.

To me, the word God just means and/or just refers to the whole, as One. Which can be sensed and/or understood in two ways. They are;

In the visible sense, which is just the continual re-forming and re-shaping of 'matter', itself. Which is obviously 'omnipotent'. And,

In the invisible sense, which is just the Truly OPEN Mind, of which there is only One, and One only. Which is how and where 'omniscient' sits, or is where the ability to comprehend, understood, and/or know any and all things comes from, exactly.

[Age]

What are these empirical facts that God exists, that you say you know?

Well seeing as you will not provide your definition of the God word, then this will now have to be a one-way discussion.

One empirical fact that God exists is matter, which is creating, or causing, the Universe in which you have found "yourself" within, and are observing/experiencing.

Another empirical fact that God exists comes from the creations created by and for human beings from having the ability to be Truly OPEN to always be continually never-ending imagining, inventing, designing, planning, and building new, and relatively Truly awe-inspiring, creations.

See, to me and what I found what the God word has been meaning or referring to exactly, the empirical facts are, and were, always 'blindingly obvious', but 'we' human beings had just not evolved enough to be able to see them clearly, nor Accurately. And, in the days when this is being written, 'we' human beings are just on the very brink of this cognitive enlightenment.

But like with absolutely any and all new or more knowledge obviously some reach and obtain comprehension and understanding before others. As it could not be any other way.

Age, as a clarifying question, I would like to know what your criteria for empirical evidence is.

If we agree upon and accept the 'empirical' word to mean and/or refer to; based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Then my criteria for empirical evidence is 'that' which can be 'observed' and/or 'experienced'.

Also, and I am not yet sure whether you know my definitions for the 'evidence' word. When in relation to 'empiricism', when some thing can be or is being 'observed' and/or 'experienced', which is then 'evidence' for some said or claimed thing, then this 'observation/experience' is in no way at all actual 'proof' of said nor claimed thing.

For example, observing/experiencing a flat looking earth is in no way actual 'proof' of a flat earth nor is the observing/observation/experiencing of the sun revolving around earth in any way actually means nor 'proves' that that actually the sun revolves around the earth. Just like the observation/experience of red shift means in any way at all that the Universe is actually expanding, which to some the red shift also confers the Universe began, with a big bang nor any other thing nor way.

To me, 'empirical evidence' may well lead to some actual findings/things. However, always prefer to find and see actual 'proof' only, instead.

'Proof' is not 'evidence' and 'evidence' is not 'proof'. Proof explains things, whereas evidence is just alludes to some things.

To me, empirical evidence, and, empirical proof are two very different things, with the word 'empirical' just referring to what is 'observable' and/or 'experiential' rather than just what is a theory nor logic.

[LuckyR]

When studying religious language in my A-Level course (I am in year 13 - the last year of British high school), my immediate reaction was that I totally questioned the existence of non-cognitive statements. The definition of non-cognitive statements given for this unit is that they are statements for which it is inappropriate to ask whether they are true or false, for they express something other than empirical facts. I could not see how any statement could not be true or false, for example, if I say "I like Star Trek" - surely someone with adequate understanding and equipment could observe my brain functions and conclude that I am having a reaction that shows I enjoy it. What do you think?
I suspect I am being totally oblivious, or just being a total idiot.

Your analysis of "I like Star Trek" is accurate, however put "Star Trek is a good show" to the same test.

[Skepdick]

Suppose the statement is, “God exists.”? Do you know of any empirical facts?

Suppose the statement is "My thirst exists". Do you know of any empirical facts?

Well, of course I do! The very experience of my thirst is the empirical fact that I am thirst.

[Skepdick]

When studying religious language in my A-Level course (I am in year 13 - the last year of British high school), my immediate reaction was that I totally questioned the existence of non-cognitive statements. The definition of non-cognitive statements given for this unit is that they are statements for which it is inappropriate to ask whether they are true or false, for they express something other than empirical facts. I could not see how any statement could not be true or false, for example, if I say "I like Star Trek" - surely someone with adequate understanding and equipment could observe my brain functions and conclude that I am having a reaction that shows I enjoy it. What do you think?
I suspect I am being totally oblivious, or just being a total idiot.

You are being totally obvious. Unfortunately we live in a world where the totally obvious isn't obvious to many people. So it needs saying.

Of course it's true. It's a fact about your own tastes.

There's no need for brain function/scanning/science. I like chocolate icecream. Anyone skeptical of this claim is gaslighting you.

[Skepdick]

Your analysis of "I like Star Trek" is accurate, however put "Star Trek is a good show" to the same test.

It goes without saying that "Star Trek is a good show." has the implicit prefix of "I feel that....Star Trek is a good show."

If you need every detail made explicit for you, you may have a cognitive dysfunction.

[bahman]

When studying religious language in my A-Level course (I am in year 13 - the last year of British high school), my immediate reaction was that I totally questioned the existence of non-cognitive statements. The definition of non-cognitive statements given for this unit is that they are statements for which it is inappropriate to ask whether they are true or false, for they express something other than empirical facts. I could not see how any statement could not be true or false, for example, if I say "I like Star Trek" - surely someone with adequate understanding and equipment could observe my brain functions and conclude that I am having a reaction that shows I enjoy it. What do you think?
I suspect I am being totally oblivious, or just being a total idiot.

All subjective statements are neither false nor true.

[LuckyR]

Your analysis of "I like Star Trek" is accurate, however put "Star Trek is a good show" to the same test.

It goes without saying that "Star Trek is a good show." has the implicit prefix of "I feel that....Star Trek is a good show."

If you need every detail made explicit for you, you may have a cognitive dysfunction.

Uummm... how is "Star Trek is an hour long show" substantively different from "Star Trek is a good show"?

[Skepdick]

Uummm... how is "Star Trek is an hour long show" substantively different from "Star Trek is a good show"?

It isn't any different. Do you feel that Star Trek has a "duration"? Do you feel that this "duration" (that Star Trek has) amounts to something you might call "1 hour"?

Why do you feel that particular "duration" is 1 hour?
Why don't you feel that particular duration is 2 hours; or 1.5 hours?

[FlashDangerpants]

at the top of a roller coaster... wheeeee!

but you understood that didn't you?

The others in this thread should re-read this post until they understand what a non-cognitive statement actually is.

[LuckyR]

Uummm... how is "Star Trek is an hour long show" substantively different from "Star Trek is a good show"?

It isn't any different. Do you feel that Star Trek has a "duration"? Do you feel that this "duration" (that Star Trek has) amounts to something you might call "1 hour"?

Why do you feel that particular "duration" is 1 hour?
Why don't you feel that particular duration is 2 hours; or 1.5 hours?

I'm not talking about my feelings.

[commonsense]

What do you think, imagine, or envision the 'God' word refers to, exactly?

Once this becomes known, through a discussion, then I can proceed further in proving, through a Truly philosophical discussion, how this 'Thing' actually does exist.

IMO—and I believe also for many people—that thing called God is an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being.[/quote]

The first two are very, very explainable. The third, however, seems like an absolute impossibility. But, again, like absolutely all things it all depends on and is relative to 'the observer'.

Thank you for your comments. On the first two, I agree with you, but on the last one I will explain why I think it applies also.

Now, when you say and use the word 'supernatural' what are you meaning and/or referring to, exactly?

I’m saying that supernatural refers to something that is outside of nature or more aptly above nature.

See, if when one uses that word and they are meaning or referring to some thing above, beyond, or a part from 'Nature', or just being 'natural', Itself, then, to me, this is incomprehensible. For how could absolutely any thing be above, beyond, or just not natural?

But, if when one uses that word they are meaning and/or referring to just some thing with more abilities/power than what is normally perceived as 'natural', then that might be another completely different thing.

If you have a different definition, I would certainly like to hear it.

The words omniscient and omnipotent work and fit in perfectly with my definition for the God word, the word 'supernatural' not so much so. But, again, and as always, this all depends on what and how one, "themself", is defining words here. Which, by the way, cannot be known until clarity is sought out, and obtained. Exactly like you are doing here.

To me, the word God just means and/or just refers to the whole, as One. Which can be sensed and/or understood in two ways. They are;

In the visible sense, which is just the continual re-forming and re-shaping of 'matter', itself. Which is obviously 'omnipotent'. And,

In the invisible sense, which is just the Truly OPEN Mind, of which there is only One, and One only. Which is how and where 'omniscient' sits, or is where the ability to comprehend, understood, and/or know any and all things comes from, exactly.

I respect your opinion, but here’s my wrinkle on the definition of God. I think that nothing can be omniscient or omnipotent unless it is supernatural, so IMO about God, God would have to be supernatural.

I realize that this is different from what you said, but I think the point is that this is what my opinion is

[Age]

What do you think, imagine, or envision the 'God' word refers to, exactly?

Once this becomes known, through a discussion, then I can proceed further in proving, through a Truly philosophical discussion, how this 'Thing' actually does exist.

IMO—and I believe also for many people—that thing called God is an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being.

The first two are very, very explainable. The third, however, seems like an absolute impossibility. But, again, like absolutely all things it all depends on and is relative to 'the observer'.

Thank you for your comments. On the first two, I agree with you, but on the last one I will explain why I think it applies also.

Now, when you say and use the word 'supernatural' what are you meaning and/or referring to, exactly?

I’m saying that supernatural refers to something that is outside of nature or more aptly above nature.

Well then, to me, a so-called outside or above 'Nature', Itself, 'thing', could not and thus does not exist also. But, the word 'God', to me, does not mean nor refer to any 'thing' like this here.

Also, and to me, when the word 'above' is used in relation to God, and/or when a human body looks and/or points 'upwards' when asked, 'Where is God?' for example, then 'this' is the Wrong interpretation of the 'above' word in relation to God. To me, God is just above only in a mental or a spiritual sense in that God 'knows' more, or what God 'knows' is just above individual human being 'thought' alone.

Where God exists is always within, and not 'above' in some physical sense to where human beings exist.

Think about where one is actually pointing to and/or looking at when looking and pointing 'above', considering the fact that human beings are on just about all parts of, a round, earth.

The 'above' word is in relation to what is 'within', instead, and to 'its' Truthfulness, Rightness, Accuracy, and/or Correctness, 'above' and over all other knowledge, and thinking.

See, if when one uses that word and they are meaning or referring to some thing above, beyond, or a part from 'Nature', or just being 'natural', Itself, then, to me, this is incomprehensible. For how could absolutely any thing be above, beyond, or just not natural?

But, if when one uses that word they are meaning and/or referring to just some thing with more abilities/power than what is normally perceived as 'natural', then that might be another completely different thing.

If you have a different definition, I would certainly like to hear it.

As partly explained above here, the word 'above' in relation to God, to me, just references the abilities or knowledge/knowing as being 'above' human beings usually considered knowledge/knowing and abilities.

That word, well to me anyway, certainly does not reference some physical place above human beings no mater whatever position on the round earth that they are placed at.

As for the 'supernatural' word, however, to me, there is nothing, which is actually beyond, outside of, above, nor a part from 'Nature', nor 'natural', Itself.

However, what might appear, at first, as being above or beyond 'naturally possible' could to be referred to, at first, as 'supernatural', but which might also change, on and from another perspective, and on or from a different or new/er reflection.

I respect your opinion, but here’s my wrinkle on the definition of God.

When you say and use the 'the' word here are you referring to 'my' definition of the God word here, or to some other definition of the God word?

I think that nothing can be omniscient or omnipotent unless it is supernatural, so IMO about God, God would have to be supernatural.

Now,

1. Is it even a possibility for a 'supernatural' thing to even be able to exist, to you?

2. To you, can some thing exist outside of or above 'nature', itself?

3. How do you, personally, and exactly, define the 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' words here?

4. To me, how some thing can be, and is, 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' is very simple, as well as being very easy to be, comprehended, and understood, while still existing 'naturally'.

I realize that this is different from what you said, but I think the point is that this is what my opinion is

Which is absolutely fair enough.

And, expressing one's own opinions, views, or thoughts as though they could be false, wrong, or Incorrect, and not the actual truth, can much more quickly lead to the uncovering and/or revealing of what the actual Truth is, as well.

[Skepdick]

Uummm... how is "Star Trek is an hour long show" substantively different from "Star Trek is a good show"?

It isn't any different. Do you feel that Star Trek has a "duration"? Do you feel that this "duration" (that Star Trek has) amounts to something you might call "1 hour"?

Why do you feel that particular "duration" is 1 hour?
Why don't you feel that particular duration is 2 hours; or 1.5 hours?

I'm not talking about my feelings.

Telling me what you aren't talking about instead of telling me what you are talking about is a good way of telling me you don't know what you are talking about.

[LuckyR]

It isn't any different. Do you feel that Star Trek has a "duration"? Do you feel that this "duration" (that Star Trek has) amounts to something you might call "1 hour"?

Why do you feel that particular "duration" is 1 hour?
Why don't you feel that particular duration is 2 hours; or 1.5 hours?

I'm not talking about my feelings.

Telling me what you aren't talking about instead of telling me what you are talking about is a good way of telling me you don't know what you are talking about.

I suppose it's similar to assuming others are (conveniently) looking at things that match up with one's one-trick-pony viewpoint.