RTS

I argue that the concept of God has no cognitive content whatsoever, and that not only is the belief in a God (any God) irrational and that he/she/it cannot logically exist.

I will first present a my parameters for the fundamental assumptions from which I articulate a commonly accepted definition specifying the attributes for this entity "God". Then the "God" concept will be put to a critical examination/evaluation in an attempt to confirm or refute it as representing an actual entity.


Foundational Assumptions

Assumption one: I proceed under the assumption that existence DOES exist and that it possesses specific properties. Aristotle's law of identity ("A" is "A") delineates the nature of these properties. It is an axiomatic principle from which logical laws and principles are derived. The law of identity states that something cannot be something else at the same time and in the same context. "A" is "A" and cannot be "non-A" at the same time and in the same context as it is "A". A square circle cannot exist because it cannot be both at the same time and in the same respect. This means that there cannot exist a contradiction.

Assumption two: Consciousness is the process of perceiving reality. In an epistemological context, consciousness is axiomatic, but in a metaphysical context existence is axiomatic. In a metaphysical sense, to be conscious is necessarily to be conscious of something and this presumes that existence does exist and that it possesses specific properties. The significance of this distinction will become evident when I discuss the attributes of God.

DERIVATION: Since contradictions cannot exist, we acknowledge logic as the final court of appeal. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. Logic rests on the axiomatic concept of existence existing and possessing specific properties. The law of identity's corollaries are delineated in texts on formal and informal logic. I will examine the concept of God with this assumption firmly established. By these established assumptions, I will test for internal contradictions as well as external contradictions. This means that I will apply logic to the attributes themselves as well as test for contradictions with the metaphysical primacy of existence.

Further assumption: We are examining the attributes of God under the assumption that they are intended to give us a coherent grasp of God's nature, and this is possible only if the attributes themselves are comprehensible. If they are unknowable, they are useless to us. The assertions that the theistic religionist/spiritualist/deist makes with regard to their theory of God must be testable and knowable, otherwise it is useless to us and possesses no cognitive content.


Defining the Term God

Defining ones terms is a necessary preclusion to analyzing it. George Smith discusses the difficulty with defining the word God: "What, then, is meant by the word "god"? This is not a simple question. There have been many historical concepts of god, from the anthropomorphic deities of the Greeks, to the omnipotent god of Christianity [to the "Master Planner" of Deism]. Some gods are all powerful, all knowing and all good, while others are not. Some gods communicate with man, while others do not. Differences such as these make it impossible to give a detailed description of god that will encompass every religion--and secure widespread agreement on the meaning of "god" is a formidable, if not impossible, task.

Much of the confusion surrounding the idea of god stems from the fact that the word "god" is among the most abused terms in the history of man, ranking with such notorious words as "freedom," "justice" and "love". ... some people conveniently attach the word "god" to any belief with a tinge of significance, such as nature, the universe, love or an ultimate goal in ones life." [Smith; Atheism the Case Against God]

God may be fundamentally defined as a supernatural primary consciousness who is inherently unknowable and possesses three unlimited attributes: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. These are the primary common denominators of most concepts of God and hence will comprise our definition of god. These attributes have been extracted from the writings of George Smith, philosopher of religion, and confirmed by introductory texts in philosophy.

The scope of this argument depends on ones acceptance of these primary attributes as integral components to the definition of "God". Any concept of God fundamentally defined as a supernatural being and/or as a primary consciousness is refuted by the following argument. Other concepts void of these attributes must be analyzed on their own terms.

It may be good to mention naturalistic theism since it is a trend in religious philosophy to identify God with nature. This would differ from our SUPERnatural God. These religionists/deists suggest that God is not above or beyond the natural universe but that he is omnipresent and indeed is the natural universe. George Smith has this to say of such a notion: "If one declared a belief in god, while stipulating that the term "god" was used as a synonym for the continent of North America, one's assertion would understandably be ignored or rejected as irrational. To expand this concept of god to include Europe, Asia, the planet Earth, our solar system--or the entire universe--is equally absurd." The religionist/spiritualist thus obliterates the distinction between theism and atheism. The religionist/spiritualist now makes no metaphysical assertion.

Smith makes an illustration as to show the importance of the supernatural element in the concept of God. "In another solar system, we discover an alien form of life, a form which is superior to man in all respects. These advanced creatures have an immense life span, superior strength, agility and mobility, and a superior capacity for memory and abstract thought. Does it follow, in virtue of these superior capacities, that these creatures should be designated as gods? No. Because despite the superiority of these creatures in relation to man, they are nevertheless bound by the natural laws of the universe. They are subject to the same physical and logical laws as man. If we did choose to call these beings "gods," this would mean that any creature who is superior to another creature thereby becomes a "god"--which would clearly lead to a chain of absurdities. A dog would be a god with respect to a plant. A man would be a god with respect to lower life forms. A genius would be a god in relation to a man of average intelligence, who would himself be a god when compared to a moron. ...In short, the difference between a god and natural existence must be a difference of kind, not merely of degree."


The supernatural being

The term supernatural has metaphysical connotations. It suggests that God is above or beyond the natural Universe; the "Master Planner" who designed, created, maintains and perpetuates existence. Religionists/spiritualists/deists rarely suggest that God exists in an actual place beyond the Universe because this is easily refuted deductively by the constituent definitions of "Universe" and "Beyond", they more often suggest that he exists without being subject to causal law and the law of identity. The term also has epistemological connotations. Epistemologically this would put God beyond human understanding. Unknowability is derived directly from the concept of the supernatural.

To exist beyond the framework of causal laws would be to exist beyond existence. This is derived directly from our first assumption. Existence by definition encompasses all that is. There is no alternative to existence ("non-existence is not a fact it is the absence of a fact." [Rand]). "To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a God is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities. A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature-which amounts to existence without any nature at all."[Smith; Atheism the Case Against God,41] Further, deriving from our first assumption that existence possesses a specific identity which it is necessarily limited to a being who exists without a nature (identity) is to exist without existing. To exist without existing is to commit ones self to a contradiction. Therefore, the concept of a supernatural being is inherently contradictory. This renders the notion invalid and void of cognitive content.


The primary Consciousness

The religionist/spiritualist/deist asserts that God is Metaphysically primary or axiomatic. God is said to be omnipresent and that his existence is his essence and vise versa. God's essence and existence are said to be indistinguishable because they are one in the same. "essence" refers to what a thing is; "existence" refers to that a thing is. The essence--existence dichotomy applies to every being except God because he is not made of component parts. The bible says that "I AM WHO I AM" is the only adequate answer to "what is God?". If we cannot distinguish the essence of God and his existence then we cannot distinguish him at all since man comprehends in terms of essence and existence. If we cannot apply these categories to God then we cannot comprehend him. As you will recall we derived incomprehensibility from the supernatural element as well. The concept of a supernatural being and a primary consciousness both go to my argument that the concept of God has no cognitive content. With every attribute that the religionist/spiritualist proposes they fling themselves farther into agnosticism which is a branch of atheism.

If one is conscious, one exists. If one exists then one is subject to the law of identity. If ones consciousness is subject to the law of identity then it cannot be primary or axiomatical because it presumes that it exists and has an identity. The concept of a primary consciousness is inherently contradictory hence it cannot exist.


The inherently Unknowable Being

God is said to be unknowable or incomprehensible. This is stated explicitly in many source as well as derived from other fundamental attributes of God. If God is Different in kind from natural existence then he is unknowable and if God is unknowable then the religionist's claim to have knowledge of God is an impossibility. If God does not exist then we could have no knowledge of him and if God does exist, we again could have no knowledge of him. This unfalsifiable element makes the attribute useless and again adds no cognitive content to the concept of God.


The Omni Attributes

To exist is to be. To be is to be something. To be something is to be something specific, possessing specific properties. The omni attribute is defined as totally unlimited. This analyzed with the primacy of existence demonstrates that an omniattribute cannot exist. An entity must be limited to it's identity. While the concept of a metaphysical infinite is a potentiality, epistemologically it remains an impossibility. The religionist/spiritualist suggests that God exists without a particular nature which means that he has no nature at all, which means that he is different in kind from the natural universe which makes him incomprehensible or that it simply cannot exist. these are the only two options that can be derived from this attribute and both lead to zero cognitive content.


Omnipotence

There can be no obstacle to an omnipotent being, no difficulties that God must overcome. The necessity of employing means to accomplish an end is the consequence of limited power (or an identity, as we have seen). Therefore God cannot be said to employ means in any sense. God cannot be said to act in any manner because an action is required by a being that employs means to an end. Nor can God be said to have a purpose because purpose presumes an unattained end.


Omniscience

God is said to know the past, present and the future infallibly and absolutely. If God or any other being knows the future then that would mean that the future is predetermined. The concept of salvation violates predetermination, therefore salvation is a farce. People would have no choice as to what they believe. The religionist/spiritualist tries to side step this dilemma by stating that God does not impose his foreknowledge on the course of events but this does not change the fact that if one knows what will happen then it must happen. If God knows without fallibility the future he cannot be omnipotent. If he can change the course of events he cannot have infallible knowledge of the future, hence he cannot be omniscient.


Omnibenevolence

Obviously there is what we would call evil in the world, such as murder or rape for example. If the religionist/spiritualist claims that our concept of good and evil is invalid and Gods is the only appropriate one that is unknowable then the claim that "God is good" is equally invalid.

To be benevolent there must be a choice between good and evil. If God chooses to do evil over good and he has total power he would be immoral. If God does not know there is evil but cannot prevent it he cannot be omnipotent. If God knows there is evil and can prevent it but chooses not to he cannot be omnibenevolent.


Final Note On Omni Attributes

If God knows there is evil and can stop it but chooses not to he cannot be omnibenevolent. If God knows there is evil and cannot stop it then he cannot be omnipotent. If God does not know there is evil then he cannot be omniscient.


The Only Logical Conclusion

No attribute of "God/Master Planner" can hold up to a critical evaluation. Every attribute of this concept has been found to be either internally inconsistent or in contradiction to the fundamental primacy of existence. This conclusively demonstrates that the God of these attributes cannot exist hence does not exist (except as an irrational belief). Reality does not and cannot contradict itself.

But Gods have been described as having many other attributes other than the ones mentioned above; for instance 'intelligence'. Simply because our complex universe exists, says nothing about intelligence or a designer. Designs do not require a monogenetic single designer, much less an intelligent one. Complexity and order occurs many times without a designer at all. All present workable scientific theories about the universe and life-forms do not require a Designer for their understanding, much less from an intelligent designer or many designers.

Everything in the universe could have come from pantheistic Gods/designers, trillions of them, where each designer (God) would consist of the dumbest possible entity needing only "knowledge" of one or two things (to react or not to react). Each God/designer here would consist of a subatomic particle. Thus we could have an entire universe built from many unintelligent Gods. This is the only logical way "Gods" could possibly exist. This would also explain their silence, and agrees perfectly with the science of physics.

Therefore, the only logical possibility is that God is a dumb subatomic particle that knew only one or two things (to react or not to react).

This is the reality of this issue. So cast off those absurd fantasies of a "Supernatural, Super Human-like Magician in the Sky" that is unintelligible yet knowable, who created everything but shows no evidence of his existence or that he created anything, who is all loving but will punish you with eternal torment if you don't have faith in him, etc. It's time all of humanity got REAL. The reality of the objective universe is so beautiful in itself without the need for these stupidstitious fantasies. It is soooo sad that there are still those who will blindly believe in these wild, illogical, stupidstitious, fanciful, mythological stories to base their entire worldview upon. Therein lies the problem.

Stew

Casting off his lurker mask; Stew discovers many keys on his keyboard. So many possibilities other than pointing, clicking and scrolling.



What a shame it would be to let this slip off the first page. I enjoyed the read.

a few comments:


Must a supernatural being exist without any limits, or may the state of supernatural being include just a few limits? Or, would supernatural being be supernatural if it was, say, just a tad bit supernatural?

Could an existance with a nature that knew no limits also be described as having all natures possible simultaneously?







Whoa!!


I like it! You haven't gone and copyrighted that have you?




allright... where is my lurker mask now...

xorbie

My only problem is to point out a straw man. In none of the "inherent properties of God" did you actually mention any heaven or hell or even judgement for that matter, yet you use it to argue against God. Odd.

Yes, the fundy Christian God does not exist. This is plainly true. However, what if I were to posit the theory that God in fact controls everything via karma and rebirth? Could you argue that this God in fact does not exist when the Problem of Evil argument is no longer useful?

Darth Dane

Since contradictions cannot exist


Why?






DD - Love & Laughter

RTS

"Must a supernatural being exist without any limits, or may the state of supernatural being include just a few limits? Or, would supernatural being be supernatural if it was, say, just a tad bit supernatural?

Could an existance with a nature that knew no limits also be described as having all natures possible simultaneously?"

First we must address the proposition of the "supernatural".

There is NO evidence of a supernatural, nor, by its very definition can there ever be any evidence of a supernatural. If a purported evidence would appear it would be instantly and automatically disqualified because it is an observable anomaly within our "natural" universe making it a natural occurrence with an identifiable identity. We would then probe it, explore it, quantify it, an attempt to explain it.

The supernatural is both unproved and unprovABLE.

What better angle to base a psychological con game upon.

In science anything from which there is no evidence can be safely dismissed as irrelevant, and anything unprovable is nothing more than a product of a vivid imagination; a fantasy, and when it is believed as reality it becomes a delusion.

Don't get me wrong. I recognize there are many things in our natural universe that we have yet to discover and understand. But that does not make them "supernatural". Everything in our universe IS natural.

The entire superstructure of the God concept is based upon an unproved and unprovable premise.

To any rational mind this should set-off alarm bells and red flags galore!

The point George Smith is making is that a supernatural being, if it is to differ from natural existence, must exist without existing, which is a contradiction. Everything in the natural world is limited by its identity, therefore a supernatural being can have no limited identity.

As far as a supernatural entity being a "tad bit supernatural?" That non-tad bit part would have a limited identity-- so logically, NO... it would be a contradiction.

In reality there is no evidence of the supernatural, nor beings within a supernatural, nor beings a tad bit supernatural. In dealing with "could there be...?" and "can there be...?" inquiries in relation to non-evidentiary scenarios, well... anything is possible. It is possible that a pink elephant exists in a super-supernatural realm, and that he is the supreme-supreme being. It is also possible the name of this pink elephant is "Dumbo".

Absurd you say?--- So prove me wrong. Yet this is exactly the same argument we get in reference to the supernatural and God.

Is it logical and rational? I think not!
Is it probable? Most likely not!
Can I prove it by evidences? No!
Can you disprove it? Absolutely NOT!
Just have "faith" or Dumbo may sit on you.

As far as the word "stupidstitious", it is fair game. Use it at your pleasure.

Tyre

xorbie, you seem to have a love of denying things based on "straw men", your basic argument seems to go...
"your example is not valid because you are using a sterotyped example therefore your argument doesn't work." am i correct? a simple yes or no will work...

long winded fool

A very well presented argument. You don't fall into many of the traps that most atheists do. I agree that God doesn't exist. How can the creator of existence be said to exist? Once you assume God is the creator of space and time, He becomes self-contradictory. What is outside of everything? The addition of reality or dimensions "beyond" space and time allows for God to be the creator. (Though this concept is meaningless to those bound by space and time, i.e. everyone.) Like Abbott's cube in the 2D world, God is eternally incomprehensible. If the universe, that is, the space-time continuum, is a created thing, this is to be expected. The creator must be something other than the creation. If the creation is "everything" where and what is the creator? God cannot possibly exist and has no definable qualities, yet we could still be things created by God. For 2-dimensional people, the z-axis is equivalent to outside space and before time. It can't ever exist, yet there is a cube interacting with the 2D universe as a square. How can we perceive this if it doesn't exist? Because we are not bound by two dimensions. Something not bound by space and time would logically understand how it can never exist to those bound by it, just like we can logically understand what a cube is and why it objectively doesn't exist to the inabitants of the two dimensional universe. Their brains force it into two dimesions in which it becomes self-contradictory, just as our brains force the creator of space and time into its creation, where it must necessarily become a self-contradiction. "Who created the creator?" This is as erroneous a question as a robot asking who programmed its programmer. An atheist would answer, "nobody" to the second question and be completely rational and possibly wrong. A theist would answer "nobody" to the first and be irrational and possibly right.

RTS

"Since contradictions cannot exist

Why?"

Are you an apple?

Can a square circle exist?

There is a difference between what is meant by opposites, opposing or conflicting forces/values and contradictions.

RTS

" My only problem is to point out a straw man. In none of the "inherent properties of God" did you actually mention any heaven or hell or even judgement for that matter, yet you use it to argue against God. Odd. "

My suspicion is you have assumed as argument a statement I meant as a colloquial commentary intended to delineate contradiction. I should have been more exact in my intent and wording, or perhaps I should have placed this colloquialism under a sub-heading of "Closing Commentary". In any case, it was not I who 'created' the false scenarios/concepts of a "supernatural realm" and "omnibenevolence"

" However, what if I were to posit the theory that God in fact controls everything via karma and rebirth?"

Actually in science, "theories" are explanations of observable facts.

Is this "theory(?)" of yours testable, and is there any possibility of discovering any associated knowable facts with regard to God, karma, rebirth, and "God controlling everything through karma and rebirth?" (Not that it matters, but do you mean rebirth of living creatures or rebirth of everything itself, and do you mean a physical or spiritual rebirth?)

If your "theory(?)" is not testable and there is no possibility of producing knowable facts, then your "theory(?)" is nothing more than a fanciful construct conjured from a vivid imagination which is useless to us in explaining the reality of the natural universe and it possess no scientific value nor any cognitive content.

" Could you argue that this God in fact does not exist when the Problem of Evil argument is no longer useful?"

Yes.