[betty boop]

Of course God gave us rational minds to use them, but it does not follow that the logic our rational minds can use will allow us to understand or even come close to fully explaining even the divine economy of salvation, let alone God Himself.

Aristotle's preoccupation was with "creature." His "departure" from Plato pretty much consisted of making creaturely form immanent to the creature (to put it crudely, a "bottom-up" approach). The idea of transcendent, universal form is eclipsed (the "top-down" approach). His focus on individual creature to some extent loses the greater context in which creatures exist, which is transcendent Being (ousia).

For Plato, the "being things" exist because they are participations in divine Being. This insight, while not entirely lost in Aristotle, is downplayed.

I certainly agree that Aristotelian logic is not the instrument of choice for any valid knowledge of God. Its method requires entities about which valid propositions can be constructed. But God Himself is not such an "entity." God is not, nor can be, an "object" of an intending consciousness, which can be directly and comprehensively observed, about which valid propositional statements can be made....

For God is (strictly speaking) "non-existent reality" -- by which I mean He is not subject to the categories of space and time but is, as Plato said, "Beyond" (i.e., utterly transcendent to) the world (or Cosmos). Neither Aristotelian logic nor the scientific method can deal with this tremendous immensity.

Yet still some people demand to have "proof of the existence of God" on the basis of precisely such instruments of thought. As Eric Voegelin has written, "'The existence of God is in doubt because there is no doubt about the existence of the fool'; that is the only reason the existence of God is in doubt." Yet the fact that God doesn't reduce to the size of the capabilities of methodological naturalism is the excuse for the claims that he isn't really real. So the takeaway is: Stop looking for a fiction!

I find this fascinating. For you know, "you have to know that certain things are true in order not to want to know that they are true." This isn't ignorance; this is a refusal to apperceive.

This to me explains the Dawkins mentality on the subject of God. The "God is dead" crowd always seem nervously loitering about His supposed coffin, like so many would-be undertakers, trying to assure themselves that He is, indeed, STILL dead. LOLOL!!!!!

[Kolokotronis]

“’The existence of God is in doubt because there is no doubt about the existence of the fool’; that is the only reason the existence of God is in doubt.”

Now THAT’s a line to remember!

[hosepipe]

[.. The "God is dead" crowd always seem nervously loitering about His supposed coffin, like so many would-be undertakers, trying to assure themselves that He is, indeed, STILL dead. ..]

LoL.. beautiful and delicious metaphorical irony..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding essay-post!

I certainly agree that Aristotelian logic is not the instrument of choice for any valid knowledge of God. Its method requires entities about which valid propositions can be constructed. But God Himself is not such an "entity." God is not, nor can be, an "object" of an intending consciousness, which can be directly and comprehensively observed, about which valid propositional statements can be made....

For God is (strictly speaking) "non-existent reality" -- by which I mean He is not subject to the categories of space and time but is, as Plato said, "Beyond" (i.e., utterly transcendent to) the world (or Cosmos). Neither Aristotelian logic nor the scientific method can deal with this tremendous immensity.

Exactly! Very well said.

It is sad to watch Dawkins insist that God does not exist because Dawkins cannot understand Him.

It is even more sad to me when a Christian insists that God must be understandable to him. A Christian should know better than to think God could fit in a tidy little box (to use Quix's term.)