Whether acknowledged or not, the concept of God pervades western philosophy.  Influential philosophers, such as Descartes and Kant, believed in God, while equally influential philosophers, such as Hume and Nietzsche, did not.  Their beliefs influenced not only their own philosophies, but subsequent philosophers as well. Doubters of the pervasive nature of God should ask themselves how their favorite philosophical concept would be impacted if tomorrow’s banner headline proclaimed that the status of God had been unequivocally established.  Arguments for or against this concept might be weakened or strengthened, but they would surely be changed.  Many believe, or disbelieve, in the existence of a God that they cannot adequately define for reasons that are incomprehensible to those with opposing beliefs.  The purpose of this article is to outline why God is beyond logical reasoning and why beliefs concerning the existence of God must be matters of faith.  This is not an abstract philosophical concept with little relevance in everyday life. It is evident daily in religion.  Faith-based religions, such as Christianity and Islam, accept the existence of God unquestioningly, while the existence of God in Buddhism is deemed unnecessary, being neither accepted nor denied.

I remember being asked ‘Do you believe in God? by a proselytizing evangelical when I was in high school.  I immediately answered ‘Yes’, as almost any rural church-going boy would.  Now, over sixty years later, I would hesitate before answering because I have learned that there are many concepts of God.  The asker of ‘Do you believe in God?’ may have an entirely different concept of God than I have.  For example, the asker may conceive of God as requiring strict obedience to all 613 commandments in the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament), while I do not.  ‘Why doesn’t everyone just use the dictionary definition of God?’  This may sound reasonable, but is ultimately unsatisfactory.  Consider the first definition of God in the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary:



“the supreme or ultimate reality: such as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe.”

This definition is fine until you realize that it is paradoxical. Possibly the best known of the paradoxes it creates is the Paradox of the Stone: ‘Can God make a stone so large that God cannot lift it?’ No matter the answer, ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, God is not perfect in power. A precursor to this paradox was posed by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in the early sixth century: ‘Is it possible for God to deny himself?’ Thus, for at least 1500 years it has been recognized that definitions of God are paradoxical. If “To define is to limit.” (Oscar Wilde), then a non-paradoxical definition of God is impossible because notions of God invariably imply unlimited qualities, such as all-powerful and all-knowing.  Hence, a god that can be defined without paradox is not God. How then can we cope with the concept of God?

A primitive notion is a concept that is not defined in terms of other concepts, but is formulated by appealing to intuition and everyday experiences. For many, beauty is a primitive notion, as indicated by the expression ‘Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.’ If ‘God’ is a primitive notion, as I suspect it is, then ‘God’ is a personal concept because each person has unique intuitions and experiences. This would explain the many conflicting concepts of God. Judging by the dozens of Christian denominations, there are even dozens of Christian concepts of God. 

It is important to note the difference between a concept of God and God per se. Accepting a concept of God does not imply the existence of that God any more than accepting the concept of a unicorn (the official national animal of Scotland) implies the existence of a unicorn. This distinction is often blurred, as in the ontological argument for the existence of God given by Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109), which in essence says ‘Since I can conceive of a perfect God, a perfect God exists.’   

There have been many ‘proofs’ for and against the existence of God since Anselm’s ‘proof’. None has gained wide acceptance due to problems with the logic used. Is this due to human inadequacy or the nature of God? The pastor/theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought it was the nature of God: “A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol.” If we accept this statement as true, then a proof of God’s existence is impossible. If God exists, God would not allow such a proof, while no proof is possible if God does not exist. A proof for the existence of God based on logical reasoning is also impossible for philosophers, such as Kant, who consider the concept of God to be beyond logical reasoning. But, can any knowledge be beyond logical reasoning? The answer was ‘No!’ for Rationalists, such as Spinoza and Leibniz. They argued that all possible knowledge could be deduced from a suitable set of axioms, but they were wrong. In 1931 Kurt Gödel proved that in any consistent (free from contradiction) logical system that supports arithmetic, there are statements that are logically undecidable. That is, there are statements that cannot be proved to be true and cannot be proved to be false using the axioms of the logical system. Gödel closed the door on Rationalist philosophers, but left it ajar for those that believe God is beyond logical reasoning. We will slip through that opening.