philosophy, epistemologyWhen arguing with theists on God’s nature, I’m often facing the following answers: “God is not subject to time”, “He is of inconceivable nature and therefore can’t be fully understood by man”, “God’s ways canno’t be understood by man” etc.
I admit it’s pretty comfortable for a theist to say that questions he canno’t answer are beyond man understanding of the world.
However, from a logical and rational point of view, do concepts beyond our understanding exist? If so, how can we rely on logic and reason to decide on God existence?
Yes in fact they do and it’s been logically proven: http://atheism.stackexchange.com/questions/3022/implications-of-godels-incompleteness-theorem
A specific class of question is unanswerable (the self-referential paradox) and as a result the concept linked with such a question is unknowable or “inconceivable.”
These concepts can be well-formed statements-
Examples:
1) What the universe would look like without the existence of man
2) The experience of a mind other than your own
3) Knowledge of the sensation of being non-self-aware (or the unknowing of death)
As to the second part of your question (deciding on God logically) I yield to Satanicpuppy’s answer.
I would say that certainly knowledge exists that is beyond our understanding, but I would say that no knowledge exists that cannot be understood.
It’s a fine distinction, but theists usually go by the whole “Unknowable god” thing, and they mean absolutely unknowable, not just unknowable to us.
I would also draw the distinction between things that are understood, and things that are observed. We don’t understand gravity, but we observe it very well.
In the end though, there is no way to know logically that god does/doesn’t exist. We can reason inductively that, since we’ve no evidence that he exists, it’s not likely that he does. But saying with 100% certainty is impossible.
There are concepts, especially in the realm of science, that are enormously complex, and which are easily beyond the grasp of the “average” person. It is therefore possible, given the complexity and uncertainty of untested scientific hypotheses, that there are as-yet-unknown concepts of even greater complexity. Such a limitation could result in them being thought of as “inconceivable” at the present time.
Arthur C. Clarke once said that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” The same thing holds true for the philosophy and conceptual understanding of the future…
That’s the “argument from ignorance” or “argument from mystery.” The theist is saying “oh, that’s just too hard for me. I don’t understand X, therefore goddidit.” It’s a copout. Given sufficient time, effort, and information, we as a species can understand anything.
I stress “information.” I fully admit there are things we aren’t going to grasp because we don’t have enough data, or the means of measuring or testing our observations. That does not make the concept beyond our understanding. It just makes it “insufficient data at this time.”
Well yes.
Our minds cannot fully understand the ideas of time and space.
Specifically concepts like eternity and infinity.
Our minds simply cannot fully understand reality outside outside of time and outside of space.
i.e. before the big bang and after this universe ends and what is beyond the limits of our universe and what is below the limits of the smallest particles.
That there is even an existence for us to discuss is pretty amazing for the time and space limited mind.
Inconceivable concepts do not exist. A concept is something, which exists in a brain, or doesn’t exist.
If nobody is able to have this idea, to think it, than it isn’t.
From the absence of fantasia, to think in 7-dimensional rooms, you cannot deduce a god. You cannot deduce anything.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.