You can't be saying that the only meaning of "god" is "a being that is logically inconsistent," can you? That makes no sense.

Just because "God" is conceived as being consistent with the universe, or with all of existence, or all of reality, etc., doesn't just make it into some powerful alien, because "consistency with the universe" need not be seen as some non-divine attribute. Why do you seem to think it is?

But how about this -- suppose you meet a theist and you ask him to describe the object of his belief, and he says the following....

"God is real, the supreme and ultimate reality, and I know this with absolute certainty. God is infinite in every possible way, without limits of any kind, whether logical, ontological, or physical, and thus transcends human conception and comprehension.

Indeed, if human beings were to evolve in a way that would double their intellectual capacity every second, and if they were to continue to evolve in that exponential fashion for a googol-plex years, or for a googol-plex TO THE GOOGOL-PLEX POWER years, they still would not even APPROACH the greatness of God, because their evolved capacity, however great, would still be a finite number, whereas God is infinite.

Thus, for any human being to deny God's reality, merely because his pitiful, amoeba-like "brain" when contemplating an infinite, limitless being encounters notions that he cannot grasp, which he calls "contradictions," is truly laughable. It is as if an ANT looked up at the sun one day, and thought to himself in his pathetic little antlike way, "Hmmm, that can't be real."

The utter failure of humans to even begin to comprehend such an ultimate being is therefore totally predictable, for God is obviously and by nature beyond the ability of any human to fully understand. That is what "supernatural" MEANS. So, the fact that humans cannot fathom God's reality in the same way that they try to fathom simple things like dogs, trees, mountains, and other ordinary objects, is no surprise at all. God transcends these things, and all things.

God even transcends "existence" itself, for "to be" implies "to be something" and being without limitation of any kind, God is beyond being "something." Which is why I will say God is "real," not that he "exists." And which is why I will say that I believe "in" God, not that I believe "that God exists." Those are your narrow constructions, and your conceptual limitations, not mine.

These general things I've related are the most we can ever say about such a transcendent being -- we simply don't have the concepts or the ability to say any more, and all of these things still fall infinitely short.

And how do I KNOW with absolute certainty that such a transcendent being is real?

I know this because God has revealed himself to me, directly and personally. In fact, that is the ONLY way that such a limited, utterly ignorant, fallible being like myself could ever possibly know God's reality. And while I could not comprehend the full nature of his reality, I could nevertheless grasp his reality itself.

There is no doubt whatsoever about this, nor could there be. The fact that you, an atheist, doubt his reality is merely a reflection of the fact that God has not revealed himself personally and directly to you. Why is that? I don't know. But if God does reveal himself to you, as he did to me, you will have absolutely no doubts about his reality, either."

Okay, now tell the theist that God doesn't exist because the concept of "God" leads to logical contradictions. The theist with this position will simply laugh and say, "So what? As I just said, by nature and by definition, GOD transcends human conceptions like 'logical contradiction.' How could it be otherwise? If God did not transcend human conceptions like that, he wouldn't be God."

God is the name we give to the part of ourselves that we are afraid to understand.

To say that gods transcend contradiction, transcend the "limits" of time and space, transcend all comprehension is a fundamentally self-detonating statement. It is to say:

"I can describe and comprehend that which is indescribable and incomprehensible."

To set rules for determining truth from falsehood is not narrow, it's rational. If something is "beyond" rational, it's madness by definition.

Removing the standards for proof does not prove anything.

If I were playing chess with you and you had me in check mate, removing the rules of chess doesn't make me the winner... it makes it not a game (and therefore there can be no winner).

To say that gods exist outside any standard of proof is the EXACT same thing as saying that gods do not exist.

If I were to say that there exists invisible spiders that are intangible, undetectable by any kind of technology or instrumentation, etc... This is the same as saying the invisible spiders don't exist. In fact how can you even say that they are "invisible spiders" at all? Why not "fiznigit"?

Also, you never answered my question. If you cannot define god, then to claim that gods exist or even "could exist" doesn't make any sense at all. It's complete madness. It's actually worse than just being wrong, it's not even wrong. It's like saying:

2 + blue = unicorn

My other question to you is (and since you still did not answer the first one I doubt you'll answer this one), what is your methodology for determining truth from falsehood? How do you know a true statement from a false one? In a debate, how do you know who wins? What are the stakes? Does the person who loses have to change his mind?

I may have to bow out of this debate if you can't answer that last question, because without any objective standards for determining truth from falsehood, much like the chess game, this wouldn't be a debate (and thus there can be no winner). As someone who strongly values rationality, it would be completely irrational for me to continue.

God is the name we give to the part of ourselves that we are afraid to understand.

I'm afraid that I don't understand this statement -- could you elaborate a bit? What do you mean by this? Thanks.

With respect to "my" criteria for distinguishing truth from falsity, I'm sure that they are the same as or similar to yours -- what is "true" is what best corresponds to the best scientific explanations and theories, and what is false is what does not. Scientific explanations and theories, in turn, are based upon observations, which should be repeatable by other observers (directly entailing that scientific activity is communal in nature, not individualistic). And the formalization of those explanations and theories is based upon logical grounds and rules, like consistency and deductive inference, etc.

So I'm assuming that we DO agree on these basic things, from what you've said several times.

But if you look to the beginning of this discussion, what we apparently disagree upon is your claim to have "certainty" about some propositions, such as those that arise in typical religious discourse. I find that to be a rather unusual posture, especially in philosophical discussion.

I've conceded, of course, that if you claim to be certain about logical or analytic truths, such as "A=A," then that's fine, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't say much -- if anything at all. It's saying that "All black cats are black," or "All non-existent deities do not exist." Okay, well, so what?

But if you go further than this, and claim to be certain about empirical or synthetic truths, such as "The earth is round," then that is where I find your position to be puzzling, since it does not sound scientific or rational, but dogmatic.

Or maybe we simply have different concepts of what science is -- I see science as valuable for the precise reason that its open-ended methodology is NON-dogmatic, in the sense that any scientific claim, since it is based upon evidence and observation, is always open to new evidence and observation -- which means possibly contrary evidence, and which should bring about the revision or the rejection of the original claim. This obviously means there is NO such thing as "certainty" in such claims, since they are always contingent (or defeasible) claims, not absolute ones.

So I'm not saying that "the earth is round" is not a true statement -- it is true, meaning that it is supported by multiple observations and is consistent with the best theories that are also supported by multiple observations. But there have been many times in science where seemingly "obviously true" claims have later been rejected, given the development of new theories with more explanatory power and greater observational support -- the displacement of Newtonian physics by relativistic physics is an example, and the displacement of Aristotelian science by quantum physics is another.

(As an aside, your rejoinder that no evidence will ever be discovered that undermines "2 +2 = 4" mixes up formal logical truths (which are essentially "absolute" but tell us little or nothing about the observational world) with scientific truths, which are not absolute. So, that's a mischaracterization of what I'm saying.)

In the religious context, I look at a theistic claim such as "God exists" in a scientific manner, so that I ask the theist, "Well, assuming that this claim can be characterized in a meaningful way, what evidence supports this claim?" And I'm perfectly willing to look at, and consider, any and all evidence in favor of that claim, even including testimonial evidence. Which means that if the evidence turns out to support that claim, I will accept it as being "true" in the same contingent or defeasible sense as any true statement. My position, however, is that the evidence for this claim is, at best, extremely weak, and so, there is no good reason to accept it as true.

It seems to me that you look at the same claim and just immediately dismiss it as meaningless, simply because you characterize its subject-matter in terms of logical contradictions. So in a way I can understand your claim of "certainty," when you immediately characterize a proposal in the weakest, most narrow, and most absurd manner.

But I find your dismissive approach to this topic to be rather uncharitable -- and not very CHRISTIAN of you, either, donchya think? It cuts off any in-depth philosophical consideration of the many aspects of religious discourse before it even starts, does it not? (For example, how is it that an atheist like me can still think that Mozart's "Requiem" is one of the most beautiful works of art ever created?)

It also doesn't explain why, if you have apparently concluded that religious discourse is utterly meaningless, that you proposed that this topic be discussed in this forum in the first place, as a source of possibly interesting philosophical exchange? Why even discuss it at all, if according to you it's just total nonsense? You seemed to be saying, hey guys, how about if we discuss some really deep, intense, and multi-faceted topic like the philosophy of religion -- and then when we come to the actual discussion, you say, oh yeah, I was only kidding, that topic isn't deep or multi-faceted at all, and in fact, it's totally meaningless and a waste of everyone's time.

And as to your unusual claims to have "certainty" about various things, you never responded to MY point -- which was the point raised in the SLATE article at the beginning of this thread, in defense of agnosticism -- of how you reconcile your alleged "certainty" with the fundamental epistemic notion that "you don't know what you don't know."

Assuming that your "certainty" extends beyond propositions that are logically or trivially true (such as "2+2=4" or "Sarah Palin is a total and complete idiot"), how is it that you can claim "certainty" if you don't know what you don't know?

It seems to me any such claim can only be made if you are also claiming to be omniscient and infallible, because only then is the proposition "you don't know what you don't know" inapplicable.

So are you omniscient and infallible?

If so, I will definitely vote for you as "God." (Or at least "Lord Emperor and Protector of the Universe")

From what do you think the concept of logic is derived?

I just discovered this discussion and read through all the posts. My mind is buzzing, trying to process all the thoughts expressed. Here is my understanding thus far of the discussion...

Nathan, you are certain that gods do not exist because every definition of every god that has been presented to you has been in contradiction with reality, which means they do not exist by their own definitions. Or the definition of god presented to you has been "god is reality" to which you would say, "why not just call it reality then?"

Dave, you are certain that it is better not to be certain about the existence or nonexistence of gods. I do not understand why your certainty about the possibility of gods existing is preferable to Nate's certainty that they do not exist. Could you explain how I would benefit from being certain that gods might exist as opposed to being certain that they do not exist?

Thanks!
Cory

Cory --

You misunderstand my position. I've never said that I was certain about anything, much less that I am "certain about not being certain." Nathan is the one who makes a certainty-claim, not me. I don't know how you can read anything I've said to imply that I'm making a certainty-claim.

I think where Nathan and I basically disagree is that I have concluded that having honest doubts about things, even your deepest beliefs and feelings, even things that you cannot conceive of in any other way, is not a weakness, but a strength -- because it is a recognition of the REALITY of human intellectual fallibility and human intellectual limitation.

My impression is that Nathan believes that the stronger intellectual position comes from making a certainty-claim, presumably when he convinces himself that he MUST be right.

But certitude is not the test of certainty, much less knowledge -- or if it is, then we'd better revise a lot of our institutions, including our schools and our legal systems, so that children who give "wrong" answers on tests but who say they are CERTAIN of those answers, are given passing grades -- or that criminals who say they are CERTAIN that they did not commit heinous crimes, no matter if the other evidence of their guilt is overwhelming, should go free without punishment.

Right above my desk at the Philly DA's Office, I have a statement to remind myself of what I'm saying, because it's important to my job to remember this -- the statement reads: "CONSIDER THAT YE MAY BE WRONG" -- and the author of the statement was Oliver Cromwell, who said that this single sentence should be carved above the entrance of every public building, and every court.

Similarly, I did my doctoral dissertation on the legal theories of Oliver Wendell Holmes, who espoused a similar idea. Holmes used to say that "the mark of a civilized mind is the ability to question one's deepest convictions" -- and I agree.

Frankly, I think Nathan's position ignores reality, because when he says he is "certain" of anything, he must be saying he can't be wrong. And to say that, one must be saying that one is both infallible and omniscient. So that's why I asked Nathan -- is he infallible and omniscient? If he is, he can legitimately claim to be certain of something. But if he is not, he can't.

My position is easily summarized this way -- human fallibility and human intellectual limitations are FACTS, whether you happen to believe the other way or not.

In other words, A = A.

You DON'T know what you don't know. That's the fact, and that's the reality.

A = A.