Answering Atheist Argument on "Non-cognativism"

Originally Posted by ooberman View Post
From a site I can't link, but you can paste and google it.

From a site I can't link, but you can paste and google it.

1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
1. Primary Attributes
2. Secondary Attributes
3. Relational Attributes.
2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)
7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.


The person making the argument on Tremblays site has a very fine write-up on the possible counters, but I'd like to see what the Christians here think. I know it's mostly Fundi's in this section, but maybe a few reasonable people will see this thread.
. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
1. Primary Attributes
2. Secondary Attributes
3. Relational Attributes.
2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.


3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.

p3 is a false statment:

primary attributes:

a. ground of being
b. eternal
c. necessary (ontolgocially and logically)
d. primary conditon or "first casue" to all existing things.
e. Transcendenal signified.
f. personal itself.




4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)

false statment because it assumes 3 which is a false statment.

5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.


arbitary assumpiton disproved above
6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

based only upon false assumptions and arobitary assertions of ideology.

7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

false statement. I just demonstated it's false hood. what he really mans to say is "concept invalid given my lanague game."

I don't paly his langauge game.