Re: [asa] The God hypothesis- a test

There seem to me to be two questions involved here. First, does God have
to fit into the categories humanly espoused? Second, is God immune from
/consequentia mirabilis/? Dawkins demonstrates the problem with the
former, when he asks what caused God. Philosophers recognize that the
First Cause is not to be understood as being in the causal chain, which
is sometimes considered observable. On the other hand, denial of the
consequences of contradictions means that there is no way to think
rationally about the deity, for every predicate would apply to him, and
to everything else.

A different problem springs from the kinds of predicates we have.
Classical logics deal with predicates and their complements, a matter
related to negation. There is a technical difference between "A is not B"
and "A is non-B." But there is a different problem with every descriptor
that is a matter of degree, for they do not fit in the simple split. The
classic example is the break between bald and non-bald. There is also a
serious problem with ambiguity, as with "eternal." There is a radical
difference between timelessness and unending time. The fact that I
consider myself begotten by my parents, but not made by them, is not what
fits what I understand from the creed's language.
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:58:32 -0400 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
I think RC's critique of the "prayer efficacy" surveys that come along
from time to time is generally valid. James 5:16, for example, speaks of
the "effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man" -- not just any old
prayer by anyone.

But I think there's also something in what you're saying here, Bernie.
Even when James says that the sort of prayer he describes "avails much,"
the person who is praying as James describes probably ends up with a very
different understanding of what "avails" means than the health-and-wealth
orientation underlying many of these surveys. It may be that are prayers
sometimes "avail" in ways that are impossible to see and measure
materially.

I also have some sympathy for what you're saying about human logic as a
measurement or test of God. I think we can reasonably expect that God
has given us minds that are capable of thinking about him in rational
terms, though even then only analogically. However, IMHO, something is
out of whack when analytic philosophers require that something ineffable
like the Trinity satisfy the rules of formal logic. I don't think God is
insulted or displeased by efforts to increase our rational conception of
Him, but I suspect that human beings who think they have a logical box
that can exclude God seem to Him like buzzing gnats.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 16 19:03:18 2008