Thought For The Day

An article in Philosophy Now purporting to be a rational, i.e. non-empirical argument for the existence of God rattled my cage.  ’A Critique of Pure Atheism’ by Andrew Likoudis sought to make a virtue out of God’s ineffability. In which case of course the mere use of words presents us with an oxymoronic abuse of language. I doubt my letter to the editor will be published, so for the record here is my dip into the private language of faith:
 
 Methinks Andrew Likoudis is just playing a language game. What exactly does "Since God is not only pure intellect but the ground of being itself (which cannot be quantitatively analyzed of course) . . .  seeking material scientific proof  does a disservice to the discussion of God's existence" actually mean? In saying this not only does Likoudis diss the best part of the Bible (and the God that goes with it) but also reveals that he is talking in his own private language, not least one in which the conclusion precedes the premises. Personally I believe that what I call The Giant Cauliflower 'is not only pure intellect but is the ground of being itself.' I urge Likoudis to prove me wrong. By the way, my Giant Cauliflower is just what I choose to call it and it is beyond scientific discovery.