Can the mind conceive the inconceivable?

Can the mind conceive the inconceivable?

Is it possible for the mind to conceive the unconceivable? This is a question that I ask atheists all the time. I happen to think it’s a very good question. Though most atheists are not honest with themselves, it’s a question that must be answered when it comes to the existence of God. If something exists, it has a nature, identity and characteristics that are all discoverable. In order for something to be discoverable, it must have an identity that makes it discoverable. If God did not exist, could the thought of him have ever entered into our minds? This is the question that we will wrestle with in this article.

I’ve often made this proposition to atheists in various discussion forums: If God did not exist the thought of him could have never entered into our minds. Conceptually that is. I follow that proposition with this question: Tell me of something that doesn’t exist? Every time I ask this question, without fail the atheist attempts to prove me wrong by answering, not realizing it’s an incoherent question. It’s a contradiction at best. What I’m asking them to do is impossible. This question violates the law of non-contradiction that A can’t be A and not A at the same time in the same relationship. Let’s take a closer look at the question: Tell me of something that doesn’t exist? “Something” exists, so to tell me of something that doesn’t exist is impossible, because “something “exists. In all cases that I’ve encountered they’ve either respond with superman or a unicorn. However, these things are conceivable, because they are derived from things that already exist. Without a real man there couldn’t be a superman and without a real horse there couldn’t be a unicorn.

This leads me to Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) who originated the ontological argument for the existence of God. Anselm defined God has the greatest possible Being that we could conceive and argued that this Being could exist in the mind. He argued that if the greatest possible Being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If this Being only existed in the mind, then a greater Being would be possible (Superman/Unicorn we can think of Beings greater than these). However, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers objected, stating that if the ontological argument were true, it could be used to prove anything. Like those who offered superman and a unicorn as a refutation, he offered the idea of the “perfect island”. I think Gaunilo, like others failed to realize that the idea of the perfect island could not exist unless a real island exists. There is no possible way to conceptually conceive of something that does not exist without deriving that thing from something that already exists. How then is it plausible to suggest that we could conceive of God, if God really did not exist? If God conceptually did not exist this article would not have been written, because there wouldn’t be any knowledge of him. The denial of God presupposes his existence. Can you deny something that conceptually doesn’t exist? To deny that God exists to me proves that he does. If God did not exist it would be impossible to deny his existence.

Consciousness

Is it possible to be conscious or aware of things that do not exist? Consciousness is predicated on existence. In the same manner, adjectives are predicated on nouns. You can’t have one without the other. To be conscious of something is to be conscious of its identity. The fact that we’re conceptually conscious of God is a big indicator to his identity. Whether or not we believe in him is irrelevant because to deny the existence of God, one must assume his existence at the same time. You can’t deny what does not exist because it does not exist.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) coined the phrase “I think, therefore I am.” He is also known as the founder of modern philosophy. Descartes doubted every single thing he could possibly doubt. All of his sense-perception he called into question, until there was one thing he could not doubt, the fact that he doubting. In order to doubt you have to think; and if he was thinking, he had to be “something” with an identity. Descartes’ conclusion necessarily followed from his premise. By way of deductive reasoning he inferred that since he was thinking he necessarily had to be something with an identity. Here is a quote from Ayn Rand a novelist and philosopher of the early/mid 1900’s who promoted an ethic called “objectivism.” A little caveat, she was not a believer and wrote to provide non-religious answers for the world’s problem. It must also be noted that few professional philosophers actually took her work seriously. However, I did agree with this quote from her book “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.”

Directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from one's awareness of the external world. Some object, i.e., some content, is involved in every state of awareness. Extrospection is a process of cognition directed outward -- a process of apprehending some existent(s) of the external world. Introspection is a process of cognition directed inward -- a process of apprehending one's own psychological actions in regard to some existent(s) of the external world, such actions as thinking, feeling, reminiscing, etc. ... A content-less state of consciousness is a contradiction in terms. Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

In conclusion, we see that conceivability is predicated on existence. If God did not exist we could not conceive of him. Whatever has entered our minds must exist on some level whether it is God or the perfect island. These things are discoverable which is why we discover them. These things have an identity. Identity can be found within itself or derived from something else. To deny the existence of something is to assume it exists. God has revealed himself to us in an overwhelming fashion. He has created man in his own image. As image bearers of God it is impossible not to be conscious of our creator. Romans 1:18: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”

Derrye Randall, Feb 21, 2012