Jayhawker Soule

"It seems very pretty," [Alice] said when she had finished [The Jabberwocky], "but it's rather hard to understand! ... Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas--only I don't exactly know what they are!" (- Lewis Carroll)

ManM, your's is a very nice concept indeed, but so what? The Jabberwocky is a very nice poem.

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

TooBad

That doesn't answer my question. If we can't make sense of a given claim, how can we possibly tell that this is due to a limitation of our understanding, rather than that it's just a nonsensical claim? You apparently believe that you can make this distinction. How's it done?

Tertulian

God is confusing! I must believe in it but I can't even begin to think about it. Phew! How can I possibly believe in something that 'transcends human intelligence'? I'm confused, please help.
Is anthropomorphication necessary for belief? Do I have to picture God as a Zeus-like being to even begin to worship it? A dude with a white beard white hair, wearing a toga. Is that God?

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

TooBad

I don't think an appeal to revelation is going to be of much help here. The problem is that there are a multitude of mutually incompatible religious traditions, each purporting to embody the one true revelation. To the extent that they contradict one another, they cannot all be true. They might well, however, all be false. How do we know which, if any, to believe? On what grounds?

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: TooBad ]</p>

ManM

ReasonableDoubt,
You lack a belief in God. So what? Really, I do not see the benefit of such a question.

TooBad,
I would say we can declare something to be nonsensical if it cannot be reconciled with it's context.

Regarding religion, we can use both our minds and our hearts to judge between them. Some religions set up a context and then make a claim which is opposed to that context. For example, I find a contradiction when one says that God is loving and then preaches double predestination. And so we can decide between religions in the same manner that we decide between philosophies.

TooBad

Good example. So do I.
Well, not quite. Philosophers are usually inclined to argue their case rationally, whereas the "revealed truth" is more typically presented as a take-it-or-leave-it assertion.
But we can certainly rule out religious traditions which are blatantly self-contradictory. After we've done that, though, how many are we left with? If none, then we're no further forward. If more than one, then we need further criteria to decide between the remaining contenders. And if by some happy chance we find that there is only one internally consistent religious tradition in all the world, then that still doesn't establish its authenticity, because consistency doesn't prove truth.
So, to recap: If we need revelation to understand God, we first need a way of recognizing a genuine revelation when we see one.

ManM

TooBad,
In the end, even philosophy is take-it-or-leave-it. Furthermore, what proves a truth beyond a shadow of a doubt? Honestly, I don't have plans on convincing anyone of theism. I just want to bring it back in the realm of possibility.

Jayhawker Soule

Then let me repeat the question posed to WJ: is there any reason whatsoever to presume that the logical possibility of a concept is sufficient warrant for the attribution of existence?

ex-preacher

Vey few things can be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt." But there are many things that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The existence of a god or the legitimacy of any of his supposed revelations are not among them.

ManM

ReasonableDoubt,
As a direct answer, I would say that logical possibility does not imply necessity of belief. Still, logical possibility is all reason provides for us. I'm not sure your question makes sense unless we have access to reality on a deeper level than our conceptualizations. Such an idea has always interested me... What would you propose to be sufficient for the attribution of existence?

ex-preacher,
It all depends on what you consider to be proof and how you interpret the evidence. Assuming naturalism, you are right to say we cannot prove God. God is defined out of the system to begin with.