Dialetheism and the Ineffability of God - Graham Priest (CUNY, USA)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Many Christian philosophers have argued that God is ineffable. Of course, in arguing for this, they talk about God. So God cannot be ineffable. Call this the self-referential trap. One way out of the trap is to accept that God is both effable and ineffable. It might be thought that such a view is incoherent. But it can be shown to make perfectly good sense using the techniques of paraconsistent logic. In this talk, I show how.
The intrinsic state of the Godhead is ineffable, it can only be spoken of in an apophatic manner however the extrinsic/immanent nature of God may spoken of in some positive respects such as providence, grace, etc.
@@spiralintobliss6785 you can call anything any thing you want but that does not make it a descriptive representation. Dude...do you even know what the word apophatic means? To describe it as infinite is an apophatic description. Now try to figger it out!
I have difficulty with the blatant hypocrisy and dishonesty used by theists when invoking divine ineffability. Theists depict, in excruciating detail, the demands of their deity. But when asked to provide the tiniest bit of objective confirmation on the nature or existence of said deity, it suddenly becomes an ineffable divine mystery.
A SUPREME PERSONAL GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE:
The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth-hole to enable the actors to speak through. Therefore, the most essential aspect of personhood is that the individual possesses a face. The fact that we do not usually refer to a decapitated body as a “person”, seems to confirm this claim. If you were confronted, simultaneously, with a severed head and a decapitated body, and asked to point to the person, would you point to the head or point to the body? I am certain most everyone would indicate the head (at least in the first instance), agreed?
Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity (God, or The Goddess), who incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics, such as a distinct, corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “PERSON”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God or Goddess embodies the so-called “omni-properties”, but as will be clearly demonstrated below, this is a largely nonsensical, unfalsifiable, and fallacious assertion.
Of course, the more intelligent Theists normally counter with: “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful spiritual being, without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving, and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely NOT a person in the etymological sense, and not a person even in the common-usage sense of the word. When did you last hear anyone refer to an omnipresent entity as being a person? The mere fact that Theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. If God is not a male, then why use masculine pronouns? If God is, in fact, male, then why would the Supreme Person necessitate gender? Does God require a female mate in order to reproduce? The most popular religious tradition, Christianity, claims that God is “Spirit”, yet “spirit” is a very vague term that is rarely defined.
Tangentially, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal that possesses a FACE, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. In recent times, animal rights activists have been heard referring to animals in such a way (as persons). The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations/countries, seems to validate this assertion (that most humans do not see other animals, like birds, fish, and mammals, as persons), otherwise, non-vegetarians/non-vegans would have no qualms about saying such things as “I’m planning to consume three persons for dinner tonight” (in reference to three animals).
Those who reject the assertion that animals are persons, would necessarily refuse to accept any intelligent extraterrestrial species as persons.
The fact that we recognize our domestic pets having variegated PERSONALITIES, appears to confirm that they are, by definition, persons.
Undoubtedly, if highly-intelligent humanoid extraterrestrial life exists, we would all refer to those alien species as “persons”. Similarly, if we were to somehow come across a Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis), surely we would consider him or her to be a person, even if the Neanderthal was unable to communicate in any semblance of a modern language. Therefore, it is an undeniable, objective fact, that the term “person” does not refer exclusively to Homo sapiens, and that when the word is used in reference to the Supreme Deity, it strongly implies that the Deity possesses more than just a mind of some kind, but also a face of some sort. Some major Theistic religions say as much, anyhow!
THE ABSURDITY OF AN “OMNI” BEING:
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Deity, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Person is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. At the risk of sounding facetious, any human being who believes in a gigantic man (or woman) perched in the heavens, is a literal moron!
Regarding the OMNIPRESENCE of God: if a Supreme Person was present everywhere, it would imply that one would be able to visually-perceive such a Person at every location. Of course, Theists claim that their fictitious God is imperceptible via the bodily senses, but can be experienced solely in one’s “heart”, by which they mean mentally (or “spiritually”). Clearly, there is no way in the world one could possibly consider such a “being”, by definition, to be personal in nature. And if it was so, this Being would be a separate object (see the Glossary definition of “object”). How could a personal God be present everywhere, when there was no such thing as a created universe before He created it? This implies that, before God created the world, He was not located in any particular place, yet became omnipresent only after creation was manifested. Note that, when the term “personal God” is used in this book, it does not imply that there exists, either potentially or actually, the concept of an impersonal God, for that is a flagrant oxymoron, given the most accurate understanding of the term “person”.
Theists may contend that God is infinite, both before and subsequent to any creative act, but again, that would necessitate God being situated in every possible point in space, which makes sense only if God was not a person, and hence, not a god/goddess, definitionally (see Glossary).
When we look around us, we do not see any semblance of a personal Deity anywhere in creation, so to claim that God is OMNIPRESENT is an obvious falsehood. Theists would argue that God is present in His creation in some kind of mysterious way, such as in the form of His Holy Spirit or via some other vague model, but that contradicts the very definition of the word “god” (see the Glossary entries for “god” and “God”).
If this fictitious Deity was actually present everywhere, as claimed by most all Theists, there would exist nothing but God, which is closer to a Pantheistic metaphysical schema, rather than a Monotheistic system. The mental gymnastics required to justify the Godhead is truly puerile.
Also, this would bring into play the question of time - without time, how does God deliberate on His desire to create a material universe?
Likewise, why would the Absolute require OMNIPOTENCE, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, Theists would argue that once God has created the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise He wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that the universe (at least our particular bubble universe) is composed of space-time, that time is relative, and therefore, cannot supervene upon the eternal, timeless Absolute.
The only omni-property that comes even close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is OMNISCIENCE, since The Monad knows absolutely everything there is to know (that is, The Monad Itself). See the previous two chapters for further clarification of this concept.
On the other hand, there is a possible infinite epistemological regression problem regarding the omniscience of God. Since God knows absolutely everything, He obviously knows that He knows everything. Consequently, He knows that He knows that He knows everything, correct? So, how far does this knowledge of knowledge retrogress? Of course, one could say “infinitely”, but certainly this is too perplexing!
Many Theologians have added the property of OMNIBENEVOLENCE (infinite goodness) to the three major omni-properties. Above all, it is imperative to understand that goodness can only make sense in relation to badness, and therefore nonsensical in reference to The Absolute. First of all, one would be required to provide an incontestable definition of the term “good”, and then demonstrate that God is absolutely always good, without the slightest hint of badness. Assuming that even one of the major Theistic religions is accurate, this assertion would be difficult to substantiate, to put it mildly. Even so, if God is transcendental to all dualities, He cannot be good, since goodness cannot exist without a measure of badness, and consequently, God must be infinitely bad as well as infinitely good, or at least beyond both good and bad.
See the Glossary entries “Absolute”, “bad”, “good” and “evil, the problem of”. Also, read Chapter 03 regarding the notion of concepts/Truth.
Cont...
When something does not exist there is not much that can be said about it.
When you don't have the slightest knowledge about eastern traditions, certainly the concepts of 'nothing' and 'existence' will be mistaken and insufficient
What is the "IT" to which you referred?
@@habacookies1570, in your own words, define “NOTHING”. ☝️🤔☝️