To: Francois Tremblay
Subject: Saying the term God is meaningless is problematic
I was reading your article about the article from noncognativism and noticed that you claim that the term God is meaningless. Now, this is false because clearly you can differenciate the word “God” from the made up word, shall we say “glaglmoere” Obviously, one has a meaning attached to it (God) and the other, does not (glaglmoere). Also, if something is meaningless, you can not say if it exists or does not exist. In order to assert something is true or false, it has to have a meaning attached to it. The concept of square circles is logically impossible, but we know this because it has a meaning.
Also, you definition of a Primary Attribute doesn’t really explain WHAT a Primary Attribute is. Here is what you have in your webpage as the definition of a Primary Attribute:
# Primary Attributes—or fundamental character of a thing, may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existant’s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified (this will be explained more extensively later in this article). (17)
“that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way.” this is talking about a relational property, not a primary one.
“fundamental character of a thing, may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of.” Such as what? This is a very broad.
P.S: I am an atheist, and a philosophy major. I am not a theist trying to debunk you, rather, it is my hope you will correct these errors so your case is stronger. Thank you for your time to read my email. I would appreciate if you emailed me back telling me what you think. Once again, thank you
“Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do.”
From: Francois Tremblay