In your lexicon, the phrase logical incoherence seems to be a tool for disagreeing with an opinion. I won't use that for-myself because of its obvious pejorative social connotation. It might be easier to use term logic or such to describe these matters with more simplicity and less obfuscation though.Prismatic wrote:
"Logically incoherent" here simply means that the statement does not make sense within its own context.
How? If there are no attributes assignable to the word God, how can it be a definite idea? How is it distinguishable from other ideas? You are telling me "I have in mind an entity I can't describe to you because it's beyond my finite comprehension, but you must believe in its existence unless you can prove it doesn't exist in any possible world."God for instance, can be a definite idea without being reduced to any particular phrase.
Indeed, but you were not speculating about them. You insisted that an atheist must prove that God did not exist in any possible world, so I presumed that you considered their existence beyond speculation. If you change your statement toI do not need to prove the existence of other Universes to speculate about them.
its logical incoherence will perhaps become clearer to you.For atheism to have credibility as more than an opinion it would need to have some logical support in proving the non-existence of God Universally and in any possible Universe I might speculate about.
The set theory parameter for a description of God seems to be of concern for you. In order to support your viewpoint pro-atheism you may wish to impeach the credibility or, as you say the logical coherence of the idea that to be convincing atheists should need to have some logically satisfying evidence or proof of the non-existence of God.
I provided (I thought helpfully) the point that in order to prove that God not exist anywhere some sort of investigation, examination or so forth of everywhere (in this Universe, any potential Universe, or wherever else might exist) would need to be made-and that that isn't possible today.
Of course commonly some like to dispute the meaning of the word 'ex-ist' and its meaning. Would God have the quality of ex-isting, and if not, why?
The German word for to-be, ist, could lead one into Heideggarian circles of convoluted word meanings, yet I will avoid that. I am willing to stipulate that I understand what I think about God and of existence, and that many other people do as well, and also of course that many people do not.
One might slip into some kind of Kripkean-Russellian examination of the meaning of names and if they have some sort of Platonic reality in-themselves, if they are descriptivist alone and so forth, and yet miss the wood for the trees. I would think that Cantor might have had a challenging time showing that trans-infinite sets can exist, or that an infinite series could exist without getting to the last number to prove it.
It is alright for atheists to have their beliefs without the logically satisfactory criteria I mentioned obviously; that is without scientific or logical support and without any ability to know how far this universe extends, exhaustively what is in it, where it came from or it there are more in order to determine if God is in it. They may not have a definition or idea of who or what God is, or a Divine Being that created a Universe, and they may not even be able to formulate such a hypothesis-however that does not mean that every is of such incapacity.
Perhaps you might read Plotinus' Enneads and regard his description of The One as a reference to God, inadequate as it may be. Then again, you might take Jesus Christ as God, and as they way, the Truth and necessity for eternal life with The Father.