We Hope In Vain

We Hope in Vain

May 6, 2007

To prove that something exists, the concept or basic idea of it must be intelligible. It must make sense at some basic intellectual level. However, if the concept of God were intelligible, then God would not be God. This is because concepts derive from definitions and the definition of God includes the property of being supernatural, which is defined as being unintelligible or beyond the grasp of reason, in this case, reason about nature. In short, the concept of God is defined as supernatural and the supernatural is defined as unintelligible, so the concept of God must also be unintelligible. If we cannot understand the concept of something, then we cannot begin to conjecture that it might or might not be this way or that, let alone conjecture that it might or might not exist. Therefore, God cannot be proven to either exist or not exist. This being the case, then, it would seem to provide religionists with some wiggle room to believe in God based on faith. However, faith is not somehow singularly immune from the requirement of basic intelligibility. Faith, like any other basis for belief, requires an intelligible object of belief. No one believes in something that means nothing. To have faith in something requires a basic idea of what that something means. Yet, as shown, no one can possibly understand what a supernatural thing means, since anything defined as supernatural is beyond the grasp of reason. It follows that no one can have faith that such a thing exists. There is not even the remotest possibility of something that means nothing existing. All one can do is hope that the hodgepodge of contradictory ideas passed down throughout history that are simultaneously used to describe God have some merit. But, as shown, none do. We hope in vain. UK