Keith Russell

Greetings:

A defined God is (by definition) a finite God, which violates most of the definitions of God--God is most often believed to be INfinite; non-finite: undefined--and undefinable.

Yet, an undefined God isn't much of a God, either.

I believe that A is A; that all things are thus finite; and that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. I believe that existence exists, and that it does so uncreated.

Thus, not only is God not possible, God isn't even necessary.

Keith.

Clutch

Keith,

Well, you can define infinity. So the problem can't be quite what you're saying, I think.

Maybe the idea is that a defined God is a comprehensible God. That would be a problem for those advocating a via negativa conception of God. But thoroughgoing v.n-ists are pretty rare as I understand it -- the invocation of "Well, we just can't understand God" is usually an opportunistic one from theists who want to dodge some specific definitional incoherence they've got into, in my experience.

I also didn't quite see where "A=A" was supposed to give the theist fits. Then again, I've long been a bit nonplussed by the conclusions that folks extract from "A=A".

On the other hand, Tercel's criteria are not especially clear, and are perhaps outright incoherent: eg, "power" is undefined; there are events (decisions are events, after all) that occur before time; etc... But the more obvious point is that no evidence differentially supports the hypothesis that such a thing exists. The 10,000 recitations of about six palpably unsound arguments notwithstanding.

WJ

Toobad!

Aside from the cosmlogical argument which posits God with first cause and avoids regress (which I happen to beleive by inference and logical necessity), here's a little taste of logical necessity/possibility of God thru words. And by the way, I could care less whether you wish to believe in a God, but just want to call your marketing bluff. Here's an analogy to help you understand the concept of a necessary being.

"There exists at least one true proposition". Is that statement true or false?

Clutch

Calling TooBad's marketing bluff?!

Hmm... TooBad claims that WJ can't prove the necessary existence of anything remotely godlike. WJ responds by not proving the necessary existence of anything remotely godlike.

Er... yes -- quite the rhetorical counterstroke, there, Dubya.

TooBad

WJ, I have no problem with the concept of necessary truth. I can grant you that your statement is necessarily true and its negation is necessarily false. Statements about statements are often like that. I'm not sure how this affects my, er, marketing bluff, but perhaps you can elucidate.

WJ

So, are you saying it is logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions by way of logical necessity?

I think you are. And if so, the concept of a necessary Being is not obviously absurd. Again, I really don't care what you believe, just want to make a response to your original thread topic.

Jayhawker Soule

"so"? Granted, this sort of stuff gets rapidly over my head, but am I missing something here?

TooBad

"Necessary truth" is one thing. "Necessary Being" is a different bag of onions altogether. Alethic necessity is not a feature of the world, it is a feature of language. Outside that realm it has no force at all. Real existence in the real world can never be established simply by manipulating definitions.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: TooBad ]</p>

WJ

Reasonable!

You guys keep asking the same questions using the logic of language to demonstrate or to provide proof/nonproof of the EOG. So, I use the same logic of language to show the concept of logical necessity exists.

What else is there? Under this pretense, the concept of a necessary Being/God is possible. Then, you apply it to other phenomena that exists in what we know about life and make inferences that 'god caused it' until proven otherwise. God becomes possible using that logic. 'To exist' is a predicate.

Again, not trying to make anyone believe anything, this is the way I look at the (original question) possibility of God.

apeman

Jayhawker Soule

Actually, it's ReasonableDoubt, but you can call me RD.
Sorry, I didn't realize.
And 'logically necessary' suggests what to you?
Two of my personal favorites are science and lasagna.
So, to paraphrase Dr. Forrest, why do you presume that the logical possibility of a concept "under this pretense" is sufficient warrant for the attribution of existence?

I know you do. It is, best I can tell, a leap of faith.
You seem to be getting ahead of yourself.
Thanks. Take care.