22ndSeptember
Unintelligibility and Disproof of God
The Continuum of Intelligibility
No concept can be completely intelligible or unintelligible. All concepts are somewhat unintelligible because all contain unknowns. All concepts are somewhat intelligible because, at the very least, a coherent mental construct, composed of other intelligible concepts, exists in the mind.
God is a concept that is defined as unintelligible. However, it cannot be completely so, for the reason previously noted. It must be somewhat intelligible. It is no different than any other concept with regard to intelligibility and can be analyzed to the extent that it is intelligible.
To be intelligible is to be understandable and to be understandable is to be reasonable. To the extent, then, that the concept of God is intelligible, it is reasonable. In other words, it must be reasonable until it reaches a point of unintelligibility.
Furthermore, the scope of unintelligibility must be clearly defined and isolated. The intelligible area of the concept is finite and the unintelligible, by virtue of representing a singular unknown, is infinite.
An example of God’s intelligible attributes is that he is the creator of the universe. An example of God’s unintelligible attributes is that he is somehow not consumed within it, but, rather, stands outside it and is not bound by its laws. In short, we can know something about God and what we know is clearly defined and amenable to analysis, with the caveat that we will always reach a point of unintelligibility.
What God’s Unintelligibility Means
So, if we find that something about God is unintelligible, then our conclusion is not that God does not exist but that we have reached a point where we can go no further. It is often argued among strong atheists that God’s internally contradictory attributes confirm his nonexistence. However, as explained, these attributes confirm only God’s partial unintelligibility, which, again, is a feature of all concepts.
That said, it must also be said that the inability to disprove a mental construct’s extension into physical reality due to its various mutually incompatible properties in no way proves that it does physically exist. In fact, it is never the case that being unable to disprove something proves it. Neither does this inability cast doubt on disbelief in a concept’s existence or, what might be another fear, suggest that anything is possible. As far as we know, a square circle or married bachelor is never possible, and we have no reason to suppose that it might be.
bipolar2 says 2nd October @ 10:42
an earlier version was posted on The Jesus Myth site.
** Deal with what’s there — **
A Western rationalist response: Whose “concept of God” are we talking about? There is no unique one. That is, the “the” must be dropped. “The concept of God” does not exist. Point 1: there are many concepts of god/gods/spirits/divine forces.
Which brings us to point 2: It’s up to your local god boosters to specify just what concept of god they’re playing with. “Seek and ye shall find” — that means being honest with one’s “opponent.”
Some concepts are simply inconsistent. For example is ‘the concept of god X’ just like the concept of the round-square? “The” round-square does not exist because its (supposed) concept is incoherent. (See comments on a post above which I refute.)
Point 3: The “God” of the big-3 monotheisms can not (logically) exist. Obviously, most theists or deists won’t immediately offer up lucid concepts of god. Though the panto-divinity: all powerful, all knowing, all merciful, will often make his (her, its) appearance. This conjunction of attributes is easy to undermine. Epicurus did so 300 years BCE — that is, three hundred years before the alleged Jesus was born! He demonstrated that the three supposedly defining characteristics of a god (theos) are mutually inconsistent. Just google ‘problem of evil’.
[Too bad XP-man didn't get a decent education in philosophy. God the father obviously wasn't willing to have his boy born in Athens, talk about unintelligent design.]
The XP-man as “Pantocrator” has been so important to the big-3 that xianity alone has spent 2,000 years propping up a failed ‘God.’ There’s even a name for this branch of theological special pleading, theodicy. Just google ‘theodicy’.
Now, on to a subset of non-rationalist believers. Dealing with those mystically inclined, the ‘I-feel-god-in-my-heart’ crowd, and in general all non-rationalist believers requires a different approach.
I know that my god/goddess/demon exists — but he/she/it can not be described, or is beyond human understanding.
The philosopher Wittgenstein, in one of his seemingly cryptic utterances said, “A nothing would be as good as a something about which nothing could be said.”
Spelled out: you claim that something exists, but no property (like, being blue) could ever be ascribed to it. This is the famous Western “via negativa” - negative path to god - “neti, neti, neti” not-this, not-this to Hindu mystics. God is not blue, is not evil, is not good . . . .
Logically, however, a claim that something exists does not ascribe a property to it — or, as you ought to have learned in logic class — existence is not a predicate. (Non-existence is not a predicate either.) “Some god exists” seems to be saying something, but it is meaningless. You might as well be saying “bar-bar” or saying nothing at all. The Viennese novelist, Robert Musil wrote “The Man without Qualities.” The man who can’t be there. A nobody. Nothing.
Nobody can talk about nothing. Who’s doing the talking here? (Nobody?) And what’s being said? (Nothing?) Zen Buddhism figured all this out long ago — hence, koans if you’re lucky or a slap in the face when persistently obtuse.
Give me your alleged concept, believers, but don’t try to hand me a putative something which is nothing.
bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007