The Cognitive Unintelligibility Of God

[Scholastic]

As St. Thomas says, we cannot know what God is, but we can know what God is not. Thus, we can reason from the existence of things that are dependent to something that is not dependent, i.e. God. What’s wrong with that?

 

[James_Kanatous]

Scholastic:

As St. Thomas says, we cannot know what God is, but we can know what God is not. Thus, we can reason from the existence of things that are dependent to something that is not dependent, i.e. God. What’s wrong with that?

The reason for which the conventional definition of the term God is meaningless and unacceptable lies within the fact that the definition is not actually a definition in the ordinary sense of the word, but rather a set of negations which attempt to clarify an unknown concept. Accordingly, theists can say what God is not, yet they cannot say what God is, and within all of their vacuous clarifications, there is a necessary prerequisite for God to be God, namely, that the universe be finite, for if the universe is not finite, then there is no God.

The problem with deducing that the universe is finite is that logic does not account for infinity, and so if the universe is infinite, both spatially and temporally, then its infinity cannot be understood through logic nor imagination.

There are either two states of being that the universe can be in, namely, infinite or finite. One would need tangible evidence supporting the theory that the universe is finite in order to suppose that it is, for mere deductions are not adequate.

 

[Richard_Lamb]

James Kanatous:

If God is the independent creator of the substantially material and monistic universe, then God is purely metaphysical and cannot be perceived, nor known empirically, by us because of it’s intangibility. God would be an incomprehensible entity, forever obscured to anything with a finite, cognitive capacity. Therefore, I contend that no one is able to believe in God because of the fact that no one knows what God is. If one does not know what God is, then one cannot believe in God, for in order to believe that something exists, one must first know what it is that they are believing to exist. Can a man who does not know what a, “FGTYR,” is, believe that a, “FGTYR,” exists? And, if a, “FGTYR,” is beyond human comprehension, can it be described meaningfully through an analogy with something tangible?

Analogies and negations are useful tools for elucidating a known concept, however, they are only useful insofar as the concept is known. A negation can never be useful for describing God, as saying what God is not, does not tell you what God is. And, similarly, an analogy is only valid insofar as it is able to refer to something known.

I think human nature is itself evidence. Man has alwasy instictively understood the existance of a hiehger being. Science recognized instinct in both animans and human ans being powerfull programed drives…Question who programed the drive to seek God in man?

 

[squirt]

James Kanatous:

*The problem with deducing that the universe is finite is that logic does not account for infinity, and so if the universe is infinite, both spatially and temporally, then its infinity cannot be understood through logic nor imagination. *

Hi James,

I’m not sure that I get what you’re saying here. Are you saying that logic can’t handle the concept of infinity? Or are you saying something else. Mathematics uses infinity a lot. Do mathematicians lack in both logical and imaginative skills? Do mathematicians have no useful concept of infinity?

Or are you saying something completely different. Thanks in advance for any clarifications you can provide.

squirt

 

[Writer]

James Kanatous:

If God is the independent creator of the substantially material and monistic universe, then God is purely metaphysical and cannot be perceived, nor known empirically, by us because of it’s intangibility. God would be an incomprehensible entity, forever obscured to anything with a finite, cognitive capacity. Therefore, I contend that no one is able to believe in God because of the fact that no one knows what God is. If one does not know what God is, then one cannot believe in God, for in order to believe that something exists, one must first know what it is that they are believing to exist. Can a man who does not know what a, “FGTYR,” is, believe that a, “FGTYR,” exists? And, if a, “FGTYR,” is beyond human comprehension, can it be described meaningfully through an analogy with something tangible?

Analogies and negations are useful tools for elucidating a known concept, however, they are only useful insofar as the concept is known. A negation can never be useful for describing God, as saying what God is not, does not tell you what God is. And, similarly, an analogy is only valid insofar as it is able to refer to something known.

You are posing quite a simple question, but the vocabulary you have selected for your post may discourage discussion by some. Of course, we cannot verify God in an empiracal sense… Isn’t that rather obvious? If we could grab a few test tubes and a light meter and be done with the whole question, that would be pretty simple, wouldn’t it? I suspect you are masking the rather simple nature of your question behind an unnecessarily verbose posting.

Christians believe that the presence of God is revealed to them through the Bible and His Church. It is God who wanted the relationship in the first place. If the Creator desires a relationship, He certainly can find a way to communicate to His creation. I will write more later perhaps on this thread, but I would have several reading recommendations to offer for the writer: The Question of God, C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life, Saint Augustine’s Confessions, and anything by Hemmingway. Augustine’s opening is especially is enlightening as it pertains to the nature of God. It is as if the author is discussing the attributes of God with God himself. Dr. Nicholi’s book on Lewis and Freud contrasts writings and speeches of both in regards to the issues you have discussed. As far as Hemmingway, I would encourage you to write in a style which encourages debate. In other words, learn to boil your thoughts down to their barest essentials and covey them with clarity and reason. Best regards for now…

 

[quintessential5]

James Kanatous:

The problem with deducing that the universe is finite is that logic does not account for infinity, and so if the universe is infinite, both spatially and temporally, then its infinity cannot be understood through logic nor imagination.

The universe is not spatially infinite. Talk to any cosmologist about that one. Also, remember that something that continues on in all directions can still be finite. For instance, the Earth is certainly finite but two dimensionally it is infinite, because I can travel east and can continue travelling east ad infinitum but that is because the Earth is finite in three dimensions.

Moreover, anything that changes cannot be temporally infinite. Something can only be temporally infinite if it transcends cause. Suppose the universe began to exist and will not end. Well, then it is still finite because it began to exist. Suppose it has always existed. That also does not qualify as infinity because it can always be numbered. No matter how far back in time you go, you will always be able to number the years of the universe. This paradox is so because of the very nature of time. All things in time are inherently finite.

For more info on this “infinite” discussion (no pun intended) see Lee Strobel’s new book The Case for the Creator. Also check out William Lane Craig’s *The * Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Also, no one has any sort of response to my previous post?

 

[JimG]

quintessential5:

The universe is not spatially infinite. Talk to any cosmologist about that one. Also, remember that something that continues on in all directions can still be finite.

The universe may not be spatially infinite, but it could be, without affecting the argument for the existence of God. It would still be contingent and limited, while God is non-contingent and unlimited. Even a spatially infinite universe is limited by many physical constants–e.g., the speed of light, Planck’s constant, quantum mechanics, physical laws, etc. The universe takes up space and time, extends its parts in space and time. God, having no parts, doesn’t.

JimG

 

[Writer]

quintessential5:

A few comments about this philosophy question:
I believe I agree with squirt…that theism and atheism are too broad to each be considered a philosophy. For instance, some theists could be empiricists in that they believe all that they hold true should be empirically proven, and perhaps the proofs for Jesus’ resurrection and other various miracles is sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in God. Others, I’m sure, just believe in God for no reason at all. Athiests, for instance, might be complete relativists who believe no truth exists at all, while others might be naturalists who believe that some truth exists but only that which can be perceived by the senses.

So I don’t know if that actually has any importance in this discussion, but I thought I’d throw my two cents in on that.

As far as a belief in God goes…couldn’t God be seen as a posited explanation for the universe? For instance, there are the classic Scholastic arguments by cosmology, causality, morality, etc (with some updated variations to them) that indicate that God exists. Now I would imagine that James might reply by saying: “Sure, sure but my point still stands because you don’t know anything about this metaphysical God, and therefore, you’re not really believing in anything.”

But I think the importance of the classic “proofs” for God is their role in the calculation of an antecedent probability that God raised Jesus from the dead on the first Easter Sunday (if you have no clue what I’m talking about here we should talk about this in more detail).

I don’t know how familiar everyone here is familiar with the proofs for the Resurrection but they are very convincing in my opinion. I think they are rendered even more convincing by taking into account the probable existence of this metaphysical God.

QUOTE]

I don’t see anything here that I disagree with. Philosophy can certainly be an underlying factor in the understanding or acceptance of faith, but I don’t think of belief in God as a philosophy in and of itself. For one thing, there are certainly many levels of understanding concerning faith in Christ.

Regarding James’ quotation from Freud, this is an interesting person to examine. Freud’s close and lifelong friend named Oskar Pfister, a devout minister, is a good example with the inconsistency and spiritual and physical misery exemplified by the life of Freud. This was a man who was torn apart by his lack of faith and seems to want to believe in his letters to various persons. We see a dark and miserable personal life in that of Freud. When someone holds this person up as an exmple to which to aspire, one is struck with the futile quest of this man for ultimate meaning and happiness in life–from young age to his deathbed. Christianity gives us the hope and conviction to believe that the spiritual world is as real as the “sub-atomic reality”, or, more to the point, as real as the air we breathe and the earth under our feet.

 

[quintessential5]

JimG:

The universe may not be spatially infinite, but it could be, without affecting the argument for the existence of God.
JimG

I agree. I just mentioned that because James seemed to think it makes a difference.

 

[squirt]

quintessential5:

Moreover, anything that changes cannot be temporally infinite. Something can only be temporally infinite if it transcends cause. Suppose the universe began to exist and will not end. Well, then it is still finite because it began to exist. Suppose it has always existed. That also does not qualify as infinity because it can always be numbered. No matter how far back in time you go, you will always be able to number the years of the universe. This paradox is so because of the very nature of time. All things in time are inherently finite.

Why can numbered sets not be infinite? What about the set of positive integers? Why does a beginning imply finiteness? The set of non-negative integers starts at 0. We can’t go backwards from there, but we can go infinitely forwards.

I’ve seen the these types of arguments before, but they seem to clash with the certain types of infinite sets used commonly in mathematics …

 

[James_Kanatous]

squirt:

Why can numbered sets not be infinite? What about the set of positive integers? Why does a beginning imply finiteness? The set of non-negative integers starts at 0. We can’t go backwards from there, but we can go infinitely forwards.

I’ve seen the these types of arguments before, but they seem to clash with the certain types of infinite sets used commonly in mathematics …

I think that when mathematicians use ‘infinity’ within their problems, they really use approximated symbols to represent infinity. Since logic is by its very nature finite, it would be impossible to actually fit an infinite figure within a finite proof, so to speak. For instance, within calculus you will often find limits that use the symbol 00 to represent infinity as a limit.

Furthermore, I am under the contention that infinity is that which has no beginning and no end; it always was, and it always will be.

 

[James_Kanatous]

squirt:

Hi James,

I’m not sure that I get what you’re saying here. Are you saying that logic can’t handle the concept of infinity? Or are you saying something else. Mathematics uses infinity a lot. Do mathematicians lack in both logical and imaginative skills? Do mathematicians have no useful concept of infinity?

Or are you saying something completely different. Thanks in advance for any clarifications you can provide.

squirt

Logic, by its nature, is dependent upon time and causality. Logic can only work insofar as there is a sequence of events, motion, and so forth. It therefore cannot be used to understand infinity, which is why it seems to make sense to us that the universe should be finite. However, something must be infinite, irrespective of whether it be a God, whatever that may be, or merely the universe, however, logic cannot explain neither the former nor the latter.

If you want to posit that the universe is finite, then you need good, tangible evidence for the posit to be justified, otherwise, there is no reason to doubt that the universe is infinite, for we have already seen the limitations of logic for over 2000 years hitherto.

 

[squirt]

James Kanatous:

I think that when mathematicians use ‘infinity’ within their problems, they really use approximated symbols to represent infinity. Since logic is by its very nature finite, it would be impossible to actually fit an infinite figure within a finite proof, so to speak. For instance, within calculus you will often find limits that use the symbol 00 to represent infinity as a limit.

Furthermore, I am under the contention that infinity is that which has no beginning and no end; it always was, and it always will be.

What makes you say that ‘logic’ is finite? It is a way of reasoning. It is neither finite nor infinite.

The ‘sideways 8’ is a symbol for infinity. Just like 1 is a symbol for unity. That does not make infinity any more or less imaginable than unity.

Mathematical infinities appear in lots of type of math, calculus included. (FWIW, I do math for a living.)

What you are calling infinity at the end of your post, I would call eternity.

 

[squirt]

James Kanatous:

Logic, by its nature, is dependent upon time and causality. Logic can only work insofar as there is a sequence of events, motion, and so forth. It therefore cannot be used to understand infinity, which is why it seems to make sense to us that the universe should be finite. However, something must be infinite, irrespective of whether it be a God, whatever that may be, or merely the universe, however, logic cannot explain neither the former nor the latter.

If you want to posit that the universe is finite, then you need good, tangible evidence for the posit to be justified, otherwise, there is no reason to doubt that the universe is infinite, for we have already seen the limitations of logic for over 2000 years hitherto.

Weren’t you arguing before that infinity is unimaginable? Then how can you say that something must be infinite? Something that we can’t imagine or know MUST BE??? What do you mean by infinite???

 

[James_Kanatous]

Writer:

Christians believe that the presence of God is revealed to them through the Bible and His Church.

If the fact that knowledge of God cannot be gained empirically is so obvious, then you would know that you cannot gain knowledge of God through a book, nor through a visit to your local church, for both the former and the latter necessitate an appeal to the senses. However, it is granted that you may not believe what christians believe, so if this is the case, then you need not concern yourself with what I say. Nonetheless, If you claim to have gained knowledge of God through a non-arbitrary, mystical fashion, then you must propose evidence for this new means of ‘perception’, otherwise your assertion is not only extraordinarily absurd, it is entirely unacceptable. I will not grant the assertion, “I gain knowledge of God through the holy spirit, and so forth,” any amount of credence unless you can support these illusionary claims with tangible, testable evidence.

 

[James_Kanatous]

squirt:

Weren’t you arguing before that infinity is unimaginable? Then how can you say that something must be infinite? Something that we can’t imagine or know MUST BE??? What do you mean by infinite???

Yes, infinity is unimaginable just the way the sub-atomic reality is, however, it can be posited in order to explain why things are the way they are. For instance, I cannot imagine what the sub-atomic reality looks like, however, I can posit that it exists because if it did not, then there would be no macro-scopic reality. The principle is the same with infinity, namely, though I cannot fathom infinity, I know that if there were nothing infinite, then there would be nothing at all.

Remember, infinity is simply a negation of finity. We can use infinity to clarify a concept, however, it cannot provide us with a concept. For instance, we know what the universe is, and we can therefore clarify it by negating what it is not, namely, finite.

 

[Apolonio]

James: Therefore, I contend that no one is able to believe in God because of the fact that no one knows what God is.

Response:
Are you an atheist? If you are, then how do you know that the proposition “God does not exist” is true? Im assuming you are saying God-talk is impossible or meaningless because we cannot know what God is. But if this is so, then we cannot say that God does not exist either.

Also, this is a similar, if not, is the argument Kai Nielsen has presented. Dallas Willard has answered his argument pretty well.

 

[James_Kanatous]

Apolonio:

James: Therefore, I contend that no one is able to believe in God because of the fact that no one knows what God is.

Response:
Are you an atheist? If you are, then how do you know that the proposition “God does not exist” is true? Im assuming you are saying God-talk is impossible or meaningless because we cannot know what God is. But if this is so, then we cannot say that God does not exist either.

Also, this is a similar, if not, is the argument Kai Nielsen has presented. Dallas Willard has answered his argument pretty well.

If I were to philosophically label myself, I would say that I am a non-cognitivist in regards to theism, which would categorize me as an atheist, since I have a lack of belief in theism. I find that the heart and soul of theism is fundamentally unintelligible, thus making religious language correspondingly unintelligible. Terms such as ‘soul’ ‘god’ ‘spirit’ ‘eternity’ ‘heavon’ ‘hell’ have no foundation within reality, and are therefore senseless. I don’t waste my time, nor my intellectual integrity, with such terms. So yes, to answer your query, I do not assert that God does or does not exist; I simply assert that God has no comparative use, as it is unverifiable and untestable.

I once heard someone say, “If your definition of God makes sense, then I am an atheist, however, if it does not, then I am a non-cognitivist and I assert that all God talk is meaningless. . . .”

 

[Apolonio]

James: If I were to philosophically label myself, I would say that I am a non-cognitivist in regards to theism, which would categorize me as an atheist, since I have a lack of belief in theism.

Response:
I would not say that a person who lacks belief in theism is an atheist. An agnostic lacks belief in theism, but he isn’t an atheist. Same goes with a deist. An atheist has been defined as one who maintains that God does not exist.

**James:**I find that the heart and soul of theism is fundamentally unintelligible, thus making religious language correspondingly unintelligible. Terms such as ‘soul’ ‘god’ ‘spirit’ ‘eternity’ ‘heavon’ ‘hell’ have no foundation within reality, and are therefore senseless.

Response:
I have to know why you believe they are unintelligible. What about abstract objects like numbers? Are they also unintelligible to you?

James: I don’t waste my time, nor my intellectual integrity, with such terms. So yes, to answer your query, I do not assert that God does or does not exist; I simply assert that God has no comparative use, as it is unverifiable and untestable.

Response:
I’m sure you don’t believe in the verification principle. Even if God cannot be verified or “tested”, it does not mean God-talk is meaningless or that He does not exist. Morality, love, aesthetics, numbers, and the laws of logic cannot be verifiiable or even “tested” (define what you mean by that) but they are certainly meaningful when we talk about them.

Also, one can say that God is an unembodied Mind. I’m sure a “mind” is meaningful to you. One of the reasons I believe in God is that abstract objects makes sense in light of His existence. For example, there are so many numbers and propositions that our minds cannot conceive or discover. But they cannot just “be there”. There would be no problem if there was a Divine Mind. This argument has been presented by Alvin Plantinga and Quentin Smith.

 

[James_Kanatous]

The definition for atheism, put simply, says that atheism is the lack of a god-belief, the absence of theism, to whatever degree and for whatever reason. The one thing that all atheists have in common, according to this definition, is that they are not theists. One either believes one or more of the various claims for the existence of a god or gods (is a theist) or one does not believe any of those claims (is an atheist). Though atheists do not recognize any “middle ground,” they do acknowledge the agnostic position, which spans both theism and atheism: a theistic agnostic thinks one or more gods exist but can say no more on the subject than this (is a theist); an atheistic agnostic doesn’t know if any gods exist (lacks a god belief, and is thus an atheist). Noncognitivists think all god-talk is meaningless, and thus lack any god beliefs (are atheists).