The question was asked:

The answer is: No.

The notion god is not a legitimate concept. According to rational epistemology, a concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted. As Ayn Rand points out in her book, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, "the element of similarity is crucially involved in the formation of every concept; similarity in this context, is the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in a different measure or degree" (pg. 15).

As such, concepts are man's tools of cognition.

As a rough example, the concept fruit is an abstraction of the similarity between different varieties of the ripened, seed-bearing part of a flowering plant, such as a pod or berry. The concept fruit is the integration of the shared characteristic that define fruits within the concept fruit, the common characteristics being the facts that they grow on a plant (fruit does not spring forth from rocks or running water), they contain seeds, and they contain some kind of fleshy substance which may or may not be edible to animals.

Take two apples, for instance. They both share the characteristics defined by the concept fruit, however, each particular specimen may vary from the other in its particular measurements, such as its size, mass, shape, coloration, degree of ripeness, scent, taste, texture, etc. They both, however, belong to the more refined and specific concept apple because they possess more shared characteristics than those covered by the wider concept fruit, such as structure, the type of tree that bears them, the seeds they contain, etc.

Comparing a peach to an apple, however, will yield new cognitive results: both the peach and the apples share the general characteristics as defined by the concept fruit, but each varies from the other in their particular measurements (i.e., size, shape, color, skin type, seed type, etc.). The concept fruit allows man to group both varieties, the peach and the apple, into the same basket, cognitively speaking, by abstracting their general similarities, and leaving out their particular measurements.

The concept produce, on the other hand, is an even wider abstraction than the concept fruit, since it includes both the concepts fruits and vegetables through its very broad definition agricultural products. An even wider abstraction would be edible things, and so on, until one reaches the widest of all concepts, which is existence, the concept that applies to all entities (i.e., things that exist).

Consequently, there are certain requirements that are necessary for something to qualify as a legitimate concept, such as A) whatever is represented by the concept must exist, and B) it must possess identity, which is a corollary of existence. Existents (existent things) all possess identity, and therefore they possess objective characteristics (i.e., characteristics which can be perceived by man's senses and verified by reason, integrated into concepts, etc.). Without these objective characteristics, there can be no legitimate concept to abstract. Hence, without objectivity an idea (i.e., an image or thought in the mind) can only qualify as a notion, which is a whim or a fancy, and remains illegitimate in the cognitive sense, since it cannot be validated by reason.

What are the objective characteristics of 'god'? This is precisely the problem with such arbitrary notions, for there is no existent entity from which to draw an abstraction and thus validate the idea 'god'. In fact, conventional 'definitions' of 'god' accomplish the exact opposite of the task of a definition, which is: to identify to the point of cognitive legitimacy an idea or thought. Without cognitive legitimacy, an idea cannot serve as a concept, or tool of cognition, which must be based in fact (i.e., in reality). The process of identification presupposes the existence of the entity being identified. Identification of an existent thing would involve the isolation of its nature, i.e., its identity, into a cognitively functional integration of its similarities. Thus, the purpose of a definition is by its very nature to limit a concept to what it represents in reality.

Every 'definition' of 'god' fails this task. For instance, all 'definitions' of 'god' make some kind of statement to the effect that 'god' is infinite or limitless, such as 'god is infinitely wise' or 'god is infinitely good' or 'infinitely powerful'. Such statements counter the very purpose of a definition, and thus disable the task of concept-formation. Also, as all definitions of 'god' include at some point the statement that 'god is incomprehensible', the notion 'god' again cannot be legitimized. The task of conceptualization is to provide man with the tools of cognition. By stating that something is incomprehensible, one excludes his notion from the process of concept-formation from the beginning, and the notion remains cognitively useless.

Other attempts to identify 'god' result in a net statement of what 'god' is not. This again frustrates the process of concept-formation to the point of inconclusivity, nd the notion 'god' yet remains cognitively useless, since there is no positive statement of identity, only absence of identity.

Furthermore, other definitions of 'god' include the statement that 'god' is supernatural. This statement generates the question, What is a super-nature? The notion 'super-nature', itself an illegitimate concept, attempts to define itself as something beyond the universe, beyond nature, and therefore beyond all existence and beyond all identity. This statement again prevents the notion 'god' from achieving cognitive legitimacy.

As a result, the notion 'god' is an example of an anti-concept. "An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept" [Ayn Rand, "Credibility and Polarization," The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1]. An anti-concept is the result of abandoning reason in the process of concept-formation and evading standards of cognitive legitimacy It is an example of epistemological fraud, and as such, it cannot benefit man.

The legitimate concepts that the notion 'god' attempts to "replace and obliterate" are many and various, and included, by extension of their corollaries, metaphysical, epistemological, ethical and even political premises and ramifications, such as reality, existence, identity, nature, consciousness, life, man, authority, certainty, reason, truth, knowledge, principle, goodness, evil, value, virtue, happiness, society, etc., until an entire, comprehensive view of life is so informed. Thus, religion, which is the philosophy of god-belief, is based on anti-conceptual premises.

More than any other anti-concept, the notion 'god' and its philosophical consequences to man throughout history have been disastrous.

I repeat: My atheism is a consequence to my allegiance to reason.

Tindrbox

_________________________________