The Cognitive Unintelligibility Of God

[Apolonio]

**James ** Noncognitivists think all god-talk is meaningless, and thus lack any god beliefs (are atheists).

Response:
Well, I then find your reasons for it unreasonable. The fact that God is unverifiable and “untestable” doesn’t mean it is meaningless. First, the verification principle if self-contradictory. Second, you would eliminate all morality-talk, love-talk, aesthetic-talk, math-talk, and even the laws of logic. The laws of logic cannot be verified nor tested. Same with math.

Also, the fact that you believe that mind-talk is meaningful (Im assuming you do), shows that the argument from abstract objects or the conceptualist argument for God’s existence meaningful as well.

 

[squirt]

James Kanatous:

For instance, we know what the universe is, and we can therefore clarify it by negating what it is not, namely, finite.

We do? Well, what is it? I’m curious. How much do we know about the universe, and how do you know that that is enough to know what it is?

Anyway, since you ‘know’ that infinity is, why don’t you just call infinity God and get it over with?

 

[squirt]

James Kanatous:

Remember, infinity is simply a negation of finity. We can use infinity to clarify a concept, however, it cannot provide us with a concept.

In terms of etymology, I agree. In terms of whether or not either finity or infinity are not concepts, I don’t agree. If culturally we had first developed words for limitlessness, and etymologically finity were the negation of infinity, we’d be in the same position and both would still be conceptually the same as they are now.

 

[quintessential5]

James Kanatous:

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.

I don’t understand why this is unsound. Let us assume that this metaphysical (or meaningless from James’ point of view) God exists. Why is it impossible for Him to come to us as Jesus and to tell us stuff about Himself?

 

[Chaffa55]

"…I simply assert that God has no comparative use, as it is unverifiable and untestable…"

The state of human knowledge is not static. Because God is not scientifically verifiable or testable by human methods today does not mean this will be the case at some point in the future. Much of science is rewritten as new discoveries and reseach technology come into use. I would venture to say that a good deal of the body of science in some disciplines from 500 years ago appears pretty dense until we consider the circumstances of those times.

"…as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away… 1 Cor 13:8-10

That leaves you, James with a dilemma (not Christians, they live by Faith); will you live long enough to witness perfect knowledge, to know whether you are right or wrong? Given these circumstances, I personally am not willing to restrict my belief in God to that which our imperfect but developing science can verify and test.

Given this conclusion, I must take other revealed information into account in deciding on the existance of God, fully knowing it is not scientifically verified or tested. I am happy to live as a believing fool; in fact, include it in my epitaph…

 

[dredgtone]

Chaffa55:

The state of human knowledge is not static. Because God is not scientifically verifiable or testable by human methods today does not mean this will be the case at some point in the future. Much of science is rewritten as new discoveries and reseach technology come into use. I would venture to say that a good deal of the body of science in some disciplines from 500 years ago appears pretty dense until we consider the circumstances of those times.

I disagree. Although science changes there will never be a glimmer of God in any body of science unless interpreted that way. God is not scientifically verifiable, nor will he ever be.

 

[James_Kanatous]

squirt:

We can look at ourselves and realize that we ‘are.’ Being is intelligible to us. And many theists think of God as just that: pure ‘be-ing.’

Reality is intelligible to us, however ‘Pure Being’ is not, since it is far beyond the visible and comprehendible. Accordingly, ‘Pure-Being’ can neither be said to exist nor to not exist, since we do not know what it is.

The concept of God carries two obvious implications: first, a god must be something other than part of the natural universe. Second, a god must be a being of some kind which is presumed by the theist to exist; this implication is often dangerously religious.

At best, your concept of God is esoteric; at worst, it is incoherent. By ‘God’, you obviously do not mean simply straightforward material existence. God as ‘Pure Being’ or ‘Being Itself’ is something which the concepts of existence and non-existence cannot apply. Therefore, I shall do something that spells death for any theologian: I shall take you at your word. Your God, whatever it is, cannot be said to exist. I, as the athesit, have no quarrel with this assertion. All things considered, it is a generous concession to the atheistic position.

Furthermore, by asserting that God is ‘Pure-Being’ you have purged the concept of God of its supernaturalism, and replaced it with existentialism. You have extended the term ‘God’ in a confused and arbitrary way to include atheism. To divorce the idea of a supernatural being from the concept of God is to obliterate the basic distinction between theism and atheism. If the so called “theist” or “christian” is willing to admit that a supernatural being does not exist, then he has capitulated to traditional atheism, and his continued use of the word “God” carries no metaphysical significance.

 

[squirt]

Hi James,

Nothing personal, but I was involved in other threads before you showed up and I have only so many hours in the day … most of which I will have to spend at work during the week. So I’m gonna be dropping this thread. If you want to discuss God as Be-ing (Ens), there are some Thomistic conversations going on …

It’s been fun talking with you.

Keep thinking, eh

 

[Writer]

James Kanatous:

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.

Once again, you magically transform the straightforward into a convlouted dialogue… Ever considered politics? I said that God cannot be devled in an empirical sense. One of the elements of empirical’s definition is that it refers to something which is verifiable by experiment. Reminds me of a guy I attended a year of Catholic high school with. Bill was a lot like you, I imagine. He was antheist and considered himself knowledgeable in philosophy. I remember glancing over at him during a required mass one morning and noticing that Bill was digging a broken paper clip into his wrist. I asked him what he was doing, and he said that the service was starting to affect him–I think he called it “mind control”. Anyway, to make a long story short, Bill considered church attendance to be an “experiment” of sorts. He approached the service with a closed mind and never got much from it, as far as I am aware.

If we approach God in an arrogant frame of mind, our “experiment” will not be successful. If we approach God with an open mind and reverent attitude, we then permit God to begin to mold us to the men and women He desires us to be. You will, of course, derisively declare that God cannot make Himself known to us, if we cannot empirically prove His presence. The Christian simply says that is the point and the mystery of faith. Our God can pretty much do whatever He is inclined to do. He did create the universe, you know.

While we cannot plumb the depths of God to your satisfaction, it is interesting to examine science in light of what we understand from Scripture and the Church. For example, I recently completed an article on a scientist friend’s new population trend research which examines downturns in population groups much in the same way we would study the rapid spread of a new disease through a city or country. While we see dying nations across the globe–e.g. Russia and France–an examination of the root causes of the population declines in studied groups leads us to a new appreciation of the danger of the “Culture of Death”, a phrase coined by Pope John Paul II a few years ago.

By the way, if you are so anti-religion, why are you here?

 

[Chaffa55]

dredgtone:

I disagree. Although science changes there will never be a glimmer of God in any body of science unless interpreted that way. God is not scientifically verifiable, nor will he ever be.

We don’t know either way, Dredgtone, no arguments here with your conclusion. Still, it seems to me God could choose to reveal Himself in this manner. We’ll see…

 

[Apolonio]

James seems to be reiterating Kai Nielsen’s argument against the existence of God. He says, “Reality is intelligible to us, however ‘Pure Being’ is not, since it is far beyond the visible and comprehendible.” But that simply does not follow. Just because something is far beyond visible and comprehendible, it doesn’t mean that it cannot said to exist. For example, let’s say we see a footprint. Now, we may not know whose footprint it is. But that does not mean there was no foot which stepped on that ground. We can say that we cannot know fully about who put that footprint there, but it doesn’t mean we cannot say the person who put the footprint there does not exist.

When he says “Accordingly, ‘Pure-Being’ can neither be said to exist nor to not exist, since we do not know what it is” it seems he is advocating an agnostic position. He cannot say “God exists” or “God does not exist”. He simply doesn’t know.

Also, he refuses to acknowledge that if we are going to accept his criteria, we are going to take away any meaningful talk about morality, aesthetics, love, laws of logic, and mathematics. Finally, he doesn’t recognize that the verification principle is self-contradictory.

 

[John_Mortell]

Let me take a crack at it. James, what do you think of these:

1)Since the temporal universe is composed of a series of causes and effects, there must be one original entity of cause- an Uncaused Cause (or what Aristotle called the ‘Prime Mover’)- to start the process in the first place.

2)This Prime Mover cannot have been created because nothing cannot bring about something.

3)Since the Prime Mover cannot be a result of anything, it is not acting in reaction to something else. Therefore its act of change is of its own merit and implies a will, instinct, or intellect of some sort. Whatever the case, the PM also has power capable enough to fulfill the first cause as well as knowing how to do what it did.

4)Time is essentially the measure of change; our universe is temporal because it is composed of a series of changes. For the Prime Mover to exist prior to the first instance of change, it must have existed in a state without change.

5)To be in this changeless state, the Prime Mover can never become susceptible to change. Any act of change has something building up to it, which is not possible for anything to be in a state of no-change in the first place. It is like trying to find the end on a circle.

6)Although it seems the Prime Mover should be susceptible to change because it is capable of initiating change, this is not necessarily true. If the PM decides to initiate more than one action, it need not be decided chronologically (Act A, then Act B, then Act C…). The PM would most likely decide every action altogether and without a beginning or end in the process of deciding:
http://members.aol.com/cmor923905/abc.gif
'Nother example, just to drive the point home. If the Prime Mover has a total of three actions to perform (for now let’s say Creation, Adam & Eve, and Apocalypse), the order of the PM’s decision-making would not go: first Creation, then Adam & Eve, then Apocalypse. A much more fitting portrayal would be written all together as:

http://members.aol.com/cmor923905/triple2.gif

 

[John_Mortell]

(Part 2)
7)Although the Prime Mover’s actions are of time, the Prime Mover itself must still be incapable of change. Because of this, the Prime Mover cannot act out its choices in a sequential manner: it cannot ponder an option, then decide to enact it, then carry through with its intentions. The Prime Mover’s knowledge, will, and power must be inseparable.

8)The qualities of the Prime Mover must be perfect or it cannot exist in the state which it must. For example, an entity with any sort of imperfection (say, 2/3 the amount of knowledge as it is capable of having) cannot exist outside of time like the PM because its ability to improve or diminish in some characteristic causes it to be susceptible to time. The Prime Mover cannot be limited in any of its characteristics. Therefore, it has perfect knowledge, will, and power.

9)Physical entities take up space and therefore have boundaries and limits. The Prime Mover cannot have limits, so it does not take up space. Since the Prime Mover sustains itself without physical form but possesses knowledge, will, and power, its state of existence is “spirit”.

 

[John_Mortell]

10)The Prime Mover cannot be divided into parts because it is not limited by physical dimensions. Theologist Frank Sheed: “Nothing can be taken from it, because there is nothing in it but its whole self.” The knowledge, will, and power are distinctive in their manner, yet are of the same nature since the PM is indivisible. In a sense, the knowledge of the Prime Mover IS the Prime Mover, the will of the Prime Mover IS the Prime Mover, and the power of the Prime Mover IS the Prime Mover. I technically shouldn’t even be writing “The Prime Mover has ___” because the Prime Mover cannot truly have anything, it can only Be. It’s sorta like this:
members.aol.com/cmor923905/circle3.gif

(It’s supposed to say ‘Knowledge, Will, and Power’, but for whatever reason I put ‘Knowledge, Wisdom, and Power.’ Oh well.)

11)There cannot be multiple Prime Movers. There cannot be two perfect entities- for them to be separate there would have to be differences and thus imperfections, preventing them from existing outside of time because imperfections would make them susceptible to change.

12)No entity can surpass the Prime Mover in any quality or else the Prime Mover can never exist outside of time.

 

[John_Mortell]

13)We possess at least some of the characteristics of the Prime Mover: we exist, we can enact change, we can choose to do things, etc.

14)The human will, like that of the PM’s, is capable of choice. Any choice that one can make must range either ‘closer’ or ‘farther’ from the qualities of the PM’s will (a range of Value). There is no such thing as a neutral choice because beings created by the PM cannot possess any capability (in this instance, a choice or mindset of some kind) which the PM does not likewise have and define to the highest degree.

1. Hatred, greed, loneliness, etc., are not compatible with the Prime Mover. They are perverted or unfulfilled versions of the PM’s qualities. Emptiness arises out of a lack of satisfaction, greed out of a lack of contentment, hatred out of a lack of love. The qualities of the Prime Mover are entirely fulfilled and do not result from a lack of anything.

16)The will of the Prime Mover certainly bears love (care for others) since the PM gains absolutely nothing from the creation of the universe.
-Creation cannot be done out of curiosity since the PM has perfect knowledge.
-Creation cannot be done out of greed since the PM is incapable of gaining more of any quality.
-Creation cannot be done out of a desire to boost the PM’s own ego or self-esteem since the PM is entirely fulfilled and incapable of improving in any aspect, even of the ego.Etc.

The only possibility for creation is that it is done not solely for the Prime Mover’s own sake, but for the sake of the inhabitants of the temporal universe, such as humanity. The gifts of existence is an act of care for others- an act of love. Because the Prime Mover is capable of love, it possesses the highest degree of love possible: perfect love.

1. We are capable of growing in our love. Since the Prime Mover created humanity out of love and for love, chances are it desires humanity to know about and believe in it and its ways. This is where apologetics steps in and I call the Prime Mover God.

 

[John_Mortell]

“Religion is an illusion … it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.”

I agree with the latter part of the sentence, though I disagree with Freud’s conclusion that religion is illusionary. People’s desire for ‘higher existence’ certainly fuels the religious viewpoint; however, this only works in our favor. Consider this: every urge man has is necessary for his benefit. When he is hungry, he eats; thirsty, drinks; sleepy, sleeps. Even the urge for sex is necessary for the survival of mankind. Why then, does the urge to connect with a higher existence exist in the first place? There is no reason that natural evolution give man an empty urge with no goal.

 

[dredgtone]

“Religion is an illusion … it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.”

I agree with the latter part of the sentence, though I disagree with Freud’s conclusion that religion is illusionary. People’s desire for ‘higher existence’ certainly fuels the religious viewpoint; however, this only works in our favor. Consider this: every urge man has is necessary for his benefit. When he is hungry, he eats; thirsty, drinks; sleepy, sleeps. Even the urge for sex is necessary for the survival of mankind. Why then, does the urge to connect with a higher existence exist in the first place? There is no reason that natural evolution give man an empty urge with no goal.

I agree. I’d even go so far as to say that this is the sole reason for religious belief. The fact that we can’t understand what happened at the inception of the universe is no impetus to believe. The fact that everything works so harmoniously is no reason to believe. The belief comes first out of a desire to believe, fueld by man’s desire for comfort in a higher existance. The rest are all justifications for why one believes, because the fact that religion is comforting is too much for many to admit even to themselves.

 

[Trinitatem]

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. How, then, do we verify and test love? What if we feel God, as in the Holy Spirit, the same way we feel love? It is intangible, except for the experience of it. We know it exists, and we desire it. Can’t we verify God in the same way we verify love? How do we test love?

“God is not scientifically verifiable.” Is love?