Well, wouldn't that mean that we should stop bothering with trying to discuss god?
Yup, if God
is transcendental. Yeah for Wittgenstein!
But Greatoliver; what makes you so sure that that either the limits of our mental capacity are fixed, or that the Universe is greater than our ability to understand it?
Our understanding may not be fixed, I agree, but this does not change the fact that there may be things we cannot understand: if there are limits to our understanding, it raises the question about what is beyond the limits. Whether there is something outside of the box, I could not say, and so we may be able to understand everything but we will never know for certain, as the very fact it is outside of the limits of our minds means we can never reach it.
Why should this be the case? Especially since we know that evolution happens, it's entirely reasonable to suggest that even if our mental limits are too small now to truely understand the Universe, they may very well grow to encompass it in the future.
Do we know Evolution happens? As far as I know, Evolution is still a theory, albeit a very persuasive one. I have a feeling that something has changed recently that has proved it, or it may just be because of the anniversary of it... I digress.
I agree that our capacities may grow, but one would be equally valid to state that they could shrink. First, just because it has happened in the past does not necessitate the happening in the future. Second, our very idea of the mechanics of Evolution could be simple compared to the actual workings: humans have a habit of finding a paradigm that works well with observation and declaring it true (e.g. stomatal opening). This would entail that any extrapolation of Evolution is invalid.
Generally, inductive reasoning is useful, but cannot prove anything or give truthful statements. "Knowing" the Sun will rise tomorrow may be illogical, but it allows society to function and when we step down from our philosophical armchairs, is more useful than the endless tautologies of deductive reasoning.
...it's 'cheating'...
I agree. The Veil of Ignorance is hideous to argue against, just because it sweeps aside anything you are arguing about, but it is a valid move:
The problem with a non-transcendental God is that it cannot exist. The theistic God, who is all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing, is a mess of fallacies and self-contradictions, which you can probably guess at. Anyone trying to defend this God ends up resorting to the Veil of Ignorance as it is the only way to for God to exist.
It is a fair move however. By describing God, we have put Him into our own capacities, which is not valid, as by doing so, some meaning has been lost, which is a bit like integrating and forgetting the constant. If He is transcendental, we cannot understand Him and so arguing is not possible, using God as a premise.
This does mean that we can only speculate and arguing is pointless, as each speculation has the same value as any other, unless they are absurd.
If God does not follow reason, there's no point in paying any attention to him, because there's no way for you to ever know if you're doing the right thing or the wrong thing.
Basically we're back to 'irrelevant' again.
He may follow a reason of His own, but as long as it is higher than ours, it can be converted down into our own, providing some kind of reason that we can accept, even if we cannot understand.
Really, when it comes to following God, it is a bit odd anyway. Why do people take it to be the correct way of living? I'm not a believer myself and so from looking in from the outside, I find the idea of a "leap of faith" something I could never see myself doing, even if they are irrational.
So concerning right or wrong, I don't really know why people think God is morally true, but if there was a God, it is certainly relevant.
Hmmm....