Tuesday, October 29, 2013

ON G-O-D: Jersey Flight

"The genuine refutation must penetrate the opponent's stronghold and meet him on his own ground; no advantage is gained by attacking him somewhere else and defeating him where he is not." Hegel's Science of Logic, A. V. Miller (George Allen and Unwin, London, Humanities Press, New York, 1969), p.581  

[Think.  Think.  Think…] Of course, this is precisely what we cannot do without an object or topic upon which to think. So how then, can we discourse on god without a clear definition of god? This is the whole problem with theism. This is the summation of the strongest refutation of theism. All the difficulty surrounding theism arises precisely at the point one tries to mark out a clear definition of god. And even if one establishes a definition one does not stick to what they proclaim; the idea of god is an idea of metamorphosis; it is an idea of vague shadow; it is an idea without a constant. The theist has no choice but alter the use of god in relation to the emphasis of his evidence (the nature of his so-called proof)… different proof is liable to prove different gods.
 
What is the proper definition of god and is this definition determined from the evidence or does the nature of god determine the nature of evidence to be used? 

Men start with god long before they start with evidence. And perhaps one can tell us this: the theist is ever so fond of speaking in terms of universals; of the necessity of objectivity, then let him begin with his notion of god; it is only fair to ask (since he requires absolute consistency in the case of the opposite view): what is the universal, authoritative and true definition of god? Until this has been established how shall we rightfully discuss the idea of god? 

And how great is the burden of this proof considering the variables, the sheer violent diversity surrounding the term god? Make no mistake; the ontology of G-O-D is the central issue of G-O-D itself!