Posted: Aug 03, 2013 11:24 am
This thread is a consequence of a discussion in the nontheism forum. This post might explain:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p1772567
The pertinent point from that post:
To devise a conception of God consistent with reason is not an argument for that God's existence. But it does enable logical arguments for its existence. If a concept is not consistent with reason, then it's a nonsensical concept - and one cannot produce logical arguments for the existence of a nonsensical entity.
So, philosophy can only entertain arguments for God's existence if its conception is consistent with reason. One couldn't consistently state that God was a square circle, for instance.
Another aspect of consistency here, is that God must be markedly distinct to all other things. There would be no consistency, for instance, in claiming that God was my neighbour's hamster. Why? Because:
a) Hamsters are part of 'the universe', and we're looking for the creatOR thereof.
b) Hamsters are finite entities possessing only finite powers to effect change. There is no reason (remember, consistency is the name of the game here) to accept one finite entity over any other. This rule would apply even for entities such as 'Superman'.
Thus, it follows that for the conception of God to be coherent, that it must be the creator of everything, and not merely a finite being. That is:
God must be omnipresent.
Many religions seem to state or imply that their God (or whatever they call it) is indeed omnipresent, but the behaviour and narratives of the believers thereof is not consistent with such a claim. Jews and Xians, for instance, treat man as being distinct to God (and it would be heresy to suggest otherwise, in their eyes). But the obvious [logical] fact is that if God is (must be) omnipresent, then nothing else can exist. That is: God is the totality of existence.
This presents philosophy with a quandary, for if God's existence depends upon nothing else existing, then 'the world' cannot exist except as an experience happening to God. Of course, being human is integral to that experience, which means the experience of being any particular human must also be something that is happening to God. Therefore, for philosophy, God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.
This post is getting quite long, so discussion of other qualities of God consistent with reason will have to wait. But just from this post, you should be getting an idea of how the concept of God can become coherent to philosophy.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p1772567
The pertinent point from that post:
To devise a conception of God consistent with reason is not an argument for that God's existence. But it does enable logical arguments for its existence. If a concept is not consistent with reason, then it's a nonsensical concept - and one cannot produce logical arguments for the existence of a nonsensical entity.
So, philosophy can only entertain arguments for God's existence if its conception is consistent with reason. One couldn't consistently state that God was a square circle, for instance.
Another aspect of consistency here, is that God must be markedly distinct to all other things. There would be no consistency, for instance, in claiming that God was my neighbour's hamster. Why? Because:
a) Hamsters are part of 'the universe', and we're looking for the creatOR thereof.
b) Hamsters are finite entities possessing only finite powers to effect change. There is no reason (remember, consistency is the name of the game here) to accept one finite entity over any other. This rule would apply even for entities such as 'Superman'.
Thus, it follows that for the conception of God to be coherent, that it must be the creator of everything, and not merely a finite being. That is:
God must be omnipresent.
Many religions seem to state or imply that their God (or whatever they call it) is indeed omnipresent, but the behaviour and narratives of the believers thereof is not consistent with such a claim. Jews and Xians, for instance, treat man as being distinct to God (and it would be heresy to suggest otherwise, in their eyes). But the obvious [logical] fact is that if God is (must be) omnipresent, then nothing else can exist. That is: God is the totality of existence.
This presents philosophy with a quandary, for if God's existence depends upon nothing else existing, then 'the world' cannot exist except as an experience happening to God. Of course, being human is integral to that experience, which means the experience of being any particular human must also be something that is happening to God. Therefore, for philosophy, God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.
This post is getting quite long, so discussion of other qualities of God consistent with reason will have to wait. But just from this post, you should be getting an idea of how the concept of God can become coherent to philosophy.