RE: Anyone want to debate this formally with me?
November 4, 2014 at 4:07 am
(This post was last modified: November 4, 2014 at 4:15 am by Mudhammam.)
Belief in God is irrational in at least the following two ways:
1. The terms purported to constitute the metaphysical monster: atemporal, non-spatial, immutable, transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, infinite, etc. Concepts are useful for the very reason that they cut and divide; their meanings are derived from their uniqueness, their separation, their distinctive features. To say that God is unlimited or infinite in any of the traditional characteristics typically attributed to him is to essentially declare God boundless. However, you cannot say that God is THIS without excluding him from THAT, or in other words, without placing limitations on his nature; to do so contradicts God's infinity. Thus, you run into a problem of eliminating the essential feature that gives a concept meaning, which is boundary, that which distinguishes it apart from other concepts.
2. On top of requiring meaningful content, a belief may be considered rational only if it is demonstrable that the premises from which the conclusion is drawn are true. One may ASSUME certain premises and rationally hold that the conclusion follows, but one cannot maintain that the assumed premises are rational without inference to experience. Here, with any proposition approaching God, we're given no such ground, as--by definition--such a being, or to put it another way, being such, transcends experience.
1. The terms purported to constitute the metaphysical monster: atemporal, non-spatial, immutable, transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, infinite, etc. Concepts are useful for the very reason that they cut and divide; their meanings are derived from their uniqueness, their separation, their distinctive features. To say that God is unlimited or infinite in any of the traditional characteristics typically attributed to him is to essentially declare God boundless. However, you cannot say that God is THIS without excluding him from THAT, or in other words, without placing limitations on his nature; to do so contradicts God's infinity. Thus, you run into a problem of eliminating the essential feature that gives a concept meaning, which is boundary, that which distinguishes it apart from other concepts.
2. On top of requiring meaningful content, a belief may be considered rational only if it is demonstrable that the premises from which the conclusion is drawn are true. One may ASSUME certain premises and rationally hold that the conclusion follows, but one cannot maintain that the assumed premises are rational without inference to experience. Here, with any proposition approaching God, we're given no such ground, as--by definition--such a being, or to put it another way, being such, transcends experience.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
