Finite Mind, Finite God

Finite Mind, Finite God is an application of the logical framework developed in Existential Logicism. It applies that structure to theology by asking a prior question that most God debates skip: what can a finite epistemic agent actually mean when it asserts, denies, or argues about ultimacy?

This is not an atheism versus theism debate, and it is not a critique of religion as a social phenomenon. The method is internal and disciplined. I argue from within authoritative texts and widely accepted interpretive conventions, using a steelman hermeneutic so that each tradition is evaluated under its strongest coherent reading rather than its weakest literalization.

The central claim is structural. When God concepts are held to maximal clarity and to their own internal logic, they tend to collapse into one of two stable outcomes. Either “God” functions as a finite agent within reality, meaning a being with preferences, actions, and directed intentions, and therefore not ultimate in the strict sense. Or “God” functions as genuine ultimacy, in which case the concept drifts toward totality or an ineffable ground that cannot be captured by finite predicates. In that second case, finite agents cannot legitimately derive high-resolution, binding public authority from the concept, especially not authority sufficient to justify coercive laws, enforced doctrine, or war.

The practical goal is not to strip human life of meaning. It is to remove the illusion that finite maps can be treated as ultimate territory. Human beings are living, experiencing systems, and moral force remains fully real inside experience. In Existential Logicism, the Contingency Guillotine rejects the idea of stance-free objective moral law, and Deterministic Moral Forces explains why moral reality still carries force in a determined world. Finite Mind, Finite God extends that same honesty to theology by clarifying what survives the collapse of the God/no-God frame, and what cannot survive without contradiction.