Not sure what you're referring too -- please clarify.
I'd like to post something I've been thinking regarding these matters of epistemology. Now that we've firmly established empiricism and rationalism I'd like to offer a definition of God and then, using our epistemological tools, posit a conjecture. This will admittedly be rudimentary at first, not least of all because I lack the capacity to comprehend or even fully articulate my thoughts on such a complex subject. But here goes.
God: creator of the universe. Omnipotent. Omnipresent.
God: Created the universe, therefore must, at least when he created it, exist outside of it.
God: Exists outside of the universe, meaning outside of space and time.
Science utilizes empiricism to test and falsifying the natural world, i.e. that which is contained within the universe. That which exists outside of the natural world is beyond the scope of science and therefore doesn't fall within the parameters of science. That doesn't mean irrelevant though. Abstract thought also exists outside of the scope of science, like the idea of morality. Mathematics also comes to mind. These are examples of a priori knowledge, which is independent of sensory experience.
The position as it stands right now: God created the universe. God had to exist outside of the universe to create it. The existence of God cannot be confirmed by science and the empirical method if he exists outside of his creation (i.e. space and time).
That position, thus far, is rational. Does anyone disagree? Let's take it a step further...
God is omnipresent because he exists outside of space and time, and thus can see the whole of space and time at all times. God is omnipotent, and thus can inject himself into space and time at any point. Being omnipotent he could perform miracles, which are defined as occurrences that do not or cannot be explained by nature (i.e. goes against the laws of physics). These miracles can never be verified or falsified because they represent a momentary suspension of the laws of nature and therefore cannot be replicated.
Existing outside of space and time, we can never know God scientifically. We can come up with rational theories on his existence, but this is emotionally (and some argue) intellectually unsatisfying.
If we can accept the above then faith in the existence of God can be considered reasonable. In fact faith would be required.
Apologies if that was convoluted. I know that the definition of God I'm using is an example of Dualism and monotheism, which might not conform to other views, like Pantheism. But humor me. Rather than dispute my definition, accept it and try to pick apart my conclusion. It's something I've been thinking a lot about, and struggling with. Thanks in advance.
|