Against limited god

[555]

If i mix beyond logic + supernatural i get this: :huh:

P1. To place a limit on something is to give it an identity, a nature.
P2. To have a nature is to be part of nature... to be natural. To work within laws.
P3. To be something specific following laws.
P4. God is supernatural, above and beyond nature, beyond laws. The creator of existence. The creator of the very laws of nature I just discussed.
C1 Therefore, to give god a 'limit' is to make him natural, part of nature.
C2. Therefore, 'god' can only be defined in negative terms.. devoid of any universe of discourse.

P1. If God is knowable, Then he must be part of nature. Not 'supernatural'
P2. To be knowable is to have an identity, to have traits, features.
P3. To have positive traits is to be part of nature, because to to exist is to exist as something, to have an identity, to have a nature.
C1. Therefore, God can't do anything that's against his nature.

[blip]

For God to exist, it must fit within my thinking capabilities. If it doesn't then it doesn't exist, because afterall, everybody knows that human reasoning capabilities are the end all be all of the universe.

[555]

Is it logical ?

[Atheos]

For God to exist, it must fit within my thinking capabilities. If it doesn't then it doesn't exist, because afterall, everybody knows that human reasoning capabilities are the end all be all of the universe.Okay, let's go with that for a minute.

Ergo we cannot know anything about god at all because god is completely outside the realm of anything we are capable of understanding. It is impossible to ascertain what god "wants" because that would be assigning some sort of "nature" to god, which god does not have.

Obviously this isn't the god pictured in the Judaeo/Christian traditions, because that god has all sorts of traits, including jealousy, anger, and a thirst for bloodletting.

Care to suggest any other god or gods that might fit this bill of not fitting within the reasoning capabilities of human beings?

[Osbert]

If i mix beyond logic + supernatural i get this: :huh:

P1. To place a limit on something is to give it an identity, a nature.
P2. To have a nature is to be part of nature... to be natural. To work within laws.
P3. To be something specific following laws.
P4. God is supernatural, above and beyond nature, beyond laws. The creator of existence. The creator of the very laws of nature I just discussed.
C1 Therefore, to give god a 'limit' is to make him natural, part of nature.
C2. Therefore, 'god' can only be defined in negative terms.. devoid of any universe of discourse.
[/list]

I am not sure I understand what you mean "beyond logic". If you place a limit on something you are just describing your immagination.
You may not need to have a natural nature, you might encompass nature.
Supernatural to us may be normal in a different frame.

Can you explain what you mean?

[Guttersnipe]

For the first argument, (P2) is false. (C2) isn't worded very well, but I understand your meaning. It would have been a bit more clear to say something like "Therefore, we cannot ascribe an identity or nature to God". And then, if you want, conclude from this that God can only be "defined in negative terms".

For the second, the order of the premises was a little off. (P1) should follow (P2) and (P3), as it seems to be derived from them. (P3) contains both a premise and a conclusion -- you should split it up. It's also worded in an unclear manner. I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premises, but I do happen to agree with it ;).