You cannot believe, or have faith, in something irrational. And this is because what is irrational is impossible, because it cannot be defined in any measure, because the definition of something cannot contradict the very thing which is being defined. And at the root of what is an irrational definition, I submit, is contradiction: the attempt to combine mutually exclusive concepts to create meaning (I explain this in more detail below). Further, that which is impossible because it cannot be defined cannot then, by definition, exist; because whatever exists must have some kind of consistent definition…some identity, even if it’s only “that thing”.
It’s interesting to note that Jesus Himself never said that God can do the impossible. What He said was “with God all things are possible”. I surmise that there is a very good reason for this. To say “God can do the impossible” is to say that God can make the impossible possible, which is a contradiction in terms and violates the very logic and conceptual consistency by which God Himself, along with everything else, is defined in the first place.
Let’s look at it this way:
The difference between all things being possible and doing impossible things is in how we define and thus identify “things”. There is no such thing, and can be no such thing, as a square circle, or an elephant which is also a bird, or a left turn which is also a right turn, or man’s Will which is also God’s Will, or a free choice which is also a pre-determined effect of the laws of physics. These are not things at all…they are concepts without the reference of reason–of conceptual consistency–and thus are never manifest nor observed in reality for the very reason that they lack a specific identity; they lack the necessary existential criteria (as far as man’s perspective is concerned) of being a conceptualized single, specific thing at any given moment.
So because these impossible, identity-less “things” cannot actually BE anything at any given moment there is no way that God can manifest them. They defy reason; they flaunt conceptual consistency. And God can no more do that which is unreasonable than he can, Himself, be unreasonable. For God to “do the impossible” is to reject the very means by which man can know and define God and himself in the first place; and that means is reason–conceptual consistency. For if there can be such a thing as an up which is also a down, or a white which is also a blue, or a Will or choice which is also an effect of an external determining cause, then even God must admit that there is no legitimate reference for Truth; that there is no reason He, or you, or I, can give for something being what it is as opposed to what it is not; what is true as opposed to what is false; what is good as opposed to what is evil. And when this happens, understanding and knowledge is demolished, and therefore, nothing has identity, not even God; not even man. And that which has no identity cannot be said to exist at all because the question “What exists?” cannot be answered.
Once that question can no longer be answered, God is dead. And so are we.
It is only by believing in what is rational, in what is reasonable, in what has conceptual consistency, that there can be any belief at all.
unreformingtheology 
It seems in every religion you run into people who want to deny the existence of the self, and they are the most loud and seem to be in the majority whether that’s the case or not. In Christianity its the Calvinists with the anti-free-will mantras, but Buddhism has its no-self clique too. And I’ve been debating some recently.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=27026
That thread began because of what I said here:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=27001&start=40#p386666
And it just goes on and on. Its funny how people who supposedly believe in reincarnation/rebirth are trying to maintain it while denying the existence of any kind of self.
David, agreed. What exactly are they thinking is reincarnated?
I wil have a look at those links; sounds like interesting conversations.
It used to really annoy me, even as late as last night, but today it kind of fascinates me how someone can deny the obvious meaning of something like:
Dhammapada verses 153-154 “Through many a birth in samsara [i.e. the physical world] have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house. Repeated birth is indeed suffering! O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of craving.”
How can anyone argue the “I” here is the house? That’s like to argue when Paul talks about his earthly tabernacle being folded so he can be clothed upon with a heavenly tabernacle that he is saying he actually is the earthly tabernacle. These guys are starting to amuse me.
Seems quite Kantian-enlightened train of thinking. I am not sure such thinking has fully investigated the issue.
It might seem that God and rationality correspond with one another, but if you apply rationality to its own devices you might find ends where it leads to negating of its own premises, and thus proving its line irrational. The question thus unfolds at these junctures of dissolution, rather than merely arguing its own ‘rationale’ through denial of what it does not include.
You might wish to look more closely at the includivity your polemical structures imply.
And perhaps this link might allow a certain reconsideration:
https://books.google.com/books?id=KgmmDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA331&lpg=PA331&dq=the+moment+of+decisive+sgnificance+kair+faith&source=bl&ots=d-5bo33HAC&sig=DKssiSSuWRrkEEp7MG3mD3TGEVo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfg8iVyPbNAhUX52MKHdgvB7wQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=the%20moment%20of%20decisive%20sgnificance%20kair%20faith&f=false
Landzek, do you have a disagreement with a specific conclusion of mine wrt the topic at hand? Your implicit appeal to reason to explain why using reason is inherently unreasonable is, in addition to being a contradiction, non-specific to the point of being counter-productive.
You’ve made this argument before, and I noted it, and I reject it because it’s clearly self-defeating. Please refrain from commenting unless you have some specific question or disagreement which is relevant to the article in question and its points therein. Thanks.
I will say this: conceptual consistency is the necessary corollary to conceptualization. Period.
To deny conceptual consistency is to deny conceptualization. Which renders all human ideas moot. Which would prevent man from even suggesting that conceptualization doesn’t need to be consistent (non-contradictory) in the first place.
David,
Fascinating, amusing, and frustrating are all good words to describe them.