Replies

"Generally, any term, abstract or otherwise, that cannot be defined, is meaningless."

Not really. I suppose it depends on who is doing the defining, but as any linguist will tell you many words are learned through usage *not* by using a dictionary. Try reading some Wittgenstein. Perhaps it's difficult defining certain words, but will they never be defined? I have trouble defining the term 'mind' but the term certainly has meaning. The same could be said of the term 'god', and as I said previously I have no problems coming up with a definition for it.

"But, in this case, the subject is God, which is not supposed an abstract concept, like, "justice,"

Whoever has thought 'god' wasn't an abstract term? It's almost by definition an abstraction. You seem misinformed on this point.

"but an actual existent, like the, "universe"."

Whoever told you this? The definition for 'god' that you are using is just simply wrong. That's why all those arguments about the undetectability of god are off base, since god is not a *physical* thing. This has all been covered long ago in various philosophical debates.

"It turns out that almost every definition or description of God contains words which the describer or definer admits they do not know the meaning of."

ROFL.

You seem to be parroting simplistic "arguments" that some Atheists use. All the words used in defining god are no less meaningful than other words used in English.

"First there must be something understood, then one can decided to believe or not to believe it. No one can believe what has no meaning?"

Again, you are parroting an oversimplistic "argument" that most philosophers rightly ignore. The problems you have just described with defining the term 'god' are identical to the same problems you have in defining *any* abstract term. If you want to reject all abstract terms, then feel free, and realize that you are more than likely a positivist. I would refer you to the well known literature on positivism and it's failures. Read some Ayer followed by Wittgenstein and you might begin to understand the issues.

Read some Ayer followed by Wittgenstein and you might begin to understand the issues.

I've read them. They're wrong. You read them, and believed them, but that is not surprising for one who believes words do not have to have exact meanings. No doubt it is comforting to have someone reinforce one's cherished irrationalities, expecially if they call themselves philosophers.

No wonder the world of philosophy is collapsing, its full of mystics, neo-palonists, and linquistic analysists.

Sorry, this mystic garbledegook gets no purchase here.

Hank