Have I "debunked" God's existence?

@Diogenes phil,

Interestingly, in that article about Sutherland in the NY Times, he says

Quote:

"My assumption is that we are here on this planet as a fundamental consequence of organic chemistry," Dr. Sutherland said. "So it must be chemistry that wants to work."

Interesting, in that he attributes agency to chemistry (i.e. 'it wants to work'.) This is somewhat similar to the attribution of agency to the gene in 'The Selfish Gene'. I suppose some are prepared to attribute agency to almost anything, other than G*d. Provided they feel that whatever it is, it is in scope for natural science.

My current view is that I am sure life started spontaneously in the manner that science proposes, and that were similar conditions to exist in other solar systems, it would start there also. But you can always ask the question 'why did it? And why did it turn out as H Sapiens, and not intelligent beetles or an enormous mass of blue-green algae, or whatever?' I am inclined to believe that this is because there is an inherent tendency towards greater levels of awareness, which is as intrinsic to reality as are the laws of thermodynamics or physics. But that is just my way of understanding it. I would not try and impose it on anyone else.

1 Reply

@Diogenes phil,

Yes I saw the same thing. It is a common fallacy when scientist personify that which has no personage. It happens all the time. Silly humans...

We personify objects, whilst objectifying people.

What has become of us? Poetic license has no place in scientific discussion.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;170247 wrote:

My current view is that I am sure life started spontaneously in the manner that science proposes, and that were similar conditions to exist in other solar systems, it would start there also. But you can always ask the question 'why did it? And why did it turn out as H Sapiens, and not intelligent beetles or an enormous mass of blue-green algae, or whatever?' I am inclined to believe that this is because there is an inherent tendency towards greater levels of awareness, which is as intrinsic to reality as are the laws of thermodynamics or physics. But that is just my way of understanding it. I would not try and impose it on anyone else.

I like how you assume that life on some other planet somewhere would be humanoid. With absolutely no evidence you just guess that it would because you feel it is necessary to maintain your agent work behind the scenes. Funny how you discredit evidence here on this planet, in favor of your lack of evidence for an intelligent agent.

---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 10:28 PM ----------

jeeprs;170160 wrote:

Having spent thousands of pages denying that the existence of an intelligence can be inferred on the basis of the wonder of nature, you then switch tactics and say 'anyway nature sucks. Species die out, people get sick, we get hereditary diseases, most of the universe is just empty space, what kind of crap God is it that would make a world like this?'

I think if there was a name for this view it would be called 'the argument from adolescent petulance'.

The reason I went into another aspect is because I was trying broaden the picture that if you take the whole entire reality it just does not add up that there is anything at all intelligent behind the existence of the universe. These are clues that there is no intelligent agent.

You can accuse me of that all you want, but it only points out that the only argument you have is the argument of ignorance.

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

I am not sure life on other planets would be human. (Although, interestingly, some of the Tantric Buddhist scriptures are said to have been communicated to other life-bearing orbs) We obviously can't know that. But as it happens, it has culminated in humans on the earth. I do note that it is an article of faith amongst evolutionary scientists that were 'the tape of evolution were to be replayed' then the outcome might be completely different to what it actually is. But Simon Conway Morris, who you will probably disregard because he has a religious view, has written a book called Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. He says in it ""Evolution is true, it happens, it is the way the world is, and we too are one of its products," and is completely opposed to creationism. He is professor of paleobiology at Cambridge, and again, his argument is supported by a great deal of scientific data (more than I am actually able to get my head around, I must admit). But as the title implies, he creates the case for a 'metaphysics of evolution' which accomodates both the scientific and religious perspectives on the matter. (Brief review here).

The universe is imperfect, compared to what? The world according to Krumple, would that be it?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;170260 wrote:

The universe is imperfect, compared to what? The world according to Krumple, would that be it?

I like how you exaggerate a comment to mean that I am expecting perfection. I never said such a thing, so why are you making an assumption that I did?

I am saying that if you had two engineers each working separately to design a device, you might get two different outcomes for the same function. I am saying that what I personally understand about human anatomy has a lot of room for better design.

If humans are made in the image or likeness to some god, then by all means that god would have flawed design as well.

Since I do not, accept that there was a designer or intelligent agent behind the human anatomy. There is only one other explanation, that it was a natural process of development. Since this is the case I can easily see how nature would not take the form of making the human anatomy ideal but instead the anatomy just worked enough to be passed on. Since there was no thought behind it, there is bound to be problems with the system. This points out that either.

A. The human anatomy had no direction thus problems develop that normally would not arise if it were to be designed by an incredibly intelligent agent.

B. The human anatomy had been designed by an intelligent agent but that agent purposely designed flaws in the system.

C. The human anatomy had been designed by an intelligent agent that was incapable of making the human anatomy any better than it is.

The only evidence we have is for the theory of A. We have absolutely zero evidence for the theories of B or C. The most likely explanation is A.

1 Reply

@Diogenes phil,

The idea of God being a cosmic scientist or architect are very much of recent origin and quite deficient. 'God' whatever that might be is not like anything, not an architect, designer, or anything else. All of these images have been used by various people at various times; they might be meaningful to those who share a common universe of discourse (e.g. Anglicans or Masons or some other cultural group) but they have no real validity. Whatever you imagine it to be, it is not, and whatever it is, it is quite beyond existence and perception.

I will share with you my personal theory about God just to make it clear where I am coming from. My personal belief is that God represents 'the only real being'. All of us humans, in our own lives, are living in an illusory realm which consists mainly of things which have no lasting value. Those who awaken to a realm of being beyond the personal are finally aware of life as it truly is. These are the awakened sages of all the cultures. As far as I am concerned, this is what religion, and philosophy for that matter, is about. Religion, insofar as it is an external reality or institution or tradition, has no real meaning, other than the inner meaning, which is represented (in Christianity) by Christ. So I believe there is something profoundly real and important behind it, but, unlike most Christians, I don't believe Christianity has a monopoly on it. I am sympathetic to the Christian view of it, but never to the fundamentalist view. I think fundamentalism does a disservice to the faith. I will always accept what is proven by science, but science proves nothing one way or the other about the ultimate questions of existence. We prove what we believe by the way we conduct ourselves. And that's about it.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;170264 wrote:

I will share with you my personal theory about God just to make it clear where I am coming from. My personal belief is that God represents 'the only real being'. All of us humans, in our own lives, are living in an illusory realm which consists mainly of things which have no lasting value. Those who awaken to a realm of being beyond the personal are finally aware of life as it truly is. These are the awakened sages of all the cultures. As far as I am concerned, this is what religion, and philosophy for that matter, is about. Religion, insofar as it is an external reality or institution or tradition, has no real meaning, other than the inner meaning, which is represented (in Christianity) by Christ. So I believe there is something profoundly real and important behind it, but, unlike most Christians, I don't believe Christianity has a monopoly on it. I am sympathetic to the Christian view of it, but never to the fundamentalist view. I think fundamentalism does a disservice to the faith. I will always accept what is proven by science, but science proves nothing one way or the other about the ultimate questions of existence. We prove what we believe by the way we conduct ourselves. And that's about it.

And all I have ever had to say about this is that it is completely a theory without anything to back it up. You slight science which actually does have evidence, but when it comes to your theory you presume you need none. A contradiction but not one that I am surprised to hear about because it is typical of a majority of theists to completely ignore any reasoning. They have motivation behind their beliefs, not one of truth but one out of necessity. The see a problem within their own reality in which they do not like it, and so they create a coping mechanism to solve this problem. That mechanism is religion. I don't have a problem with that if it were to remain at that level, but a huge majority of religious people try to push their beliefs onto the rest of society. They will even undermine the progress of science to infuse misinformation just so they derail anything that might reveal their beliefs to be inaccurate.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;170261 wrote:

If humans are made in the image or likeness to some god, then by all means that god would have flawed design as well.

So often misunderstood statement by Atheists and Theists alike. If G is an immaterial being, then humans made in his image are therefor also truly immaterial beings. This physicality is illusion.

now here is nowhere

That's not a word game. That's the truth of linguistics.

Are you computer literate? Think about a disk image mounted to your desktop. It is only a representation of the real thing, and that real thing is not a physical thing. A disk image (icon on your desktop) is a physical representation of a non physical essence of Information. It's just a pointer. It could be said that compared to the actual source of Information, it is the physical representation of it that doesn't really exist. The physical representation is unreal, compared to the reality of the non physical agent.

Same can be said for words and sentences. They are little pictures of thought. These words you see are really allowing you to see my thoughts. I could represent the very same thought in a thousand different ways from hand gestures to smoke rings, or dance. The physical representation is nothing (no thing) compared to the actual essence of my thought.

It's the thought that counts!

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;170266 wrote:

So often misunderstood statement by Atheists and Theists alike. If G is an immaterial being, then humans made in his image are therefor also truly immaterial beings. This physicality is illusion.

now here is nowhere

That's not a word game. That's the truth of linguistics.

Are you computer literate? Think about a disk image mounted to your desktop. It is only a representation of the real thing, and that real thing is not a physical thing. A disk image (icon on your desktop) is a physical representation of a non physical essence of Information. It's just a pointer. It could be said that compared to the actual source of Information, it is the physical representation of it that doesn't really exist. The physical representation is unreal, compared to the reality of the non physical agent.

Same can be said for words and sentences. They are little pictures of thought. These words you see are really allowing you to see my thoughts. I could represent the very same thought in a thousand different ways from hand gestures to smoke rings, or dance. The physical representation is nothing (no thing) compared to the actual essence of my thought.

It's the thought that counts!

I follow your analogy however I think you haven't gone far enough with it. I can actually make the claim that that disk image is in fact a real "physical" thing. I can thermodynamics to prove it.

If matter is energy just in another form. Then by all means the information on a disk is just energy which is nothing different than physical matter in another form.

However that is not really the premise I have a problem with with this part of your discussion. The premise I have a problem with is you saying that a god is no a physical thing or isn't material in any way. In what way do you know this with certainty? I mean according to the bible it gives the impression that god is a physical being. It doesn't just do it once or twice but there are dozens of accounts of it. Not to mention that gods mental instability as well. Hard to imagine a non-physical being having such emotional crisis.

I will however agree with you even despite what I just said. God is truly non-physical, but not because it exists somewhere else or in some other non physical realm, but instead because god is completely imaginary.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;170275 wrote:

...the information on a disk is just energy which is nothing different than physical matter in another form.

"Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present."
Norbert Weiner, Cybernetics p147

Information cannot be reduced to physical energy and matter. That's a big problem for materialist, as they refuse to acknowledge the distinction between the laws of physics and the laws of information.

Krumple;170275 wrote:

...according to the bible it gives the impression that god is a physical being. It doesn't just do it once or twice but there are dozens of accounts of it. Not to mention that gods mental instability as well.

You neglect to mention that the biblical God is also depicted as non physical in nature as well. But I'm not here to defend the biblical God. I've already illustrated the GTruth being that I know. It has nothing to do with religion.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;170265 wrote:

And all I have ever had to say about this is that it is completely a theory without anything to back it up. You slight science which actually does have evidence, but when it comes to your theory you presume you need none. A contradiction but not one that I am surprised to hear about because it is typical of a majority of theists to completely ignore any reasoning. They have motivation behind their beliefs, not one of truth but one out of necessity. The see a problem within their own reality in which they do not like it, and so they create a coping mechanism to solve this problem. That mechanism is religion. I don't have a problem with that if it were to remain at that level, but a huge majority of religious people try to push their beliefs onto the rest of society. They will even undermine the progress of science to infuse misinformation just so they derail anything that might reveal their beliefs to be inaccurate.

You spend an inordinate amount of time labouring this point, you know.

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 06:00 PM ----------

Besides, there is evidence aplenty. It is a wellspring that has been spoken of for millenia.

1 Reply

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;163152 wrote:

If God has free will, yet knows all of his actions through his omniscience, can He freely act against his knowledge?

Now the problem of divine freedom is a problem. I agree.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;170285 wrote:

You spend an inordinate amount of time labouring this point, you know.

Yes I do and there is a reason. From the way I see it, this is a problem, a problem that I feel creates a huge majority of the problems in society. To solve these problems this is the first step that needs to have a firm foundation if there is progress to be made. But ignoring it, the problem won't go away, but instead it would only get worse. I am not alone with this thinking and the solution is simple.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;170295 wrote:

and the solution is simple.

Go on then. It would be:....

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;170287 wrote:

...the problem of divine freedom...

Free will is the essence of thought. It manifests into the physical realm by way of physically acting upon that thought.

If, as I propose, G is the proto-essence of every thought, then G doesn't have free will. G IS free will.

We must, at some point, release G from the shackles of requiring it to behave as humans do. God in a box theology will only deceive us. I don't believe in that G anymore than you do.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;170301 wrote:

Free will is the essence of thought. It manifests into the physical realm by way of physically acting upon that thought.

If, as I propose, G is the proto-essence of every thought, then G doesn't have free will. G IS free will.

We must, at some point, release G from the shackles of requiring it to behave as humans do. God in a box theology will only deceive us. I don't believe in that G anymore than you do.

You continue to make these claims yet you have never provided anything to substantiate that god is free will or not bound by the same laws of logic that humans are. Where is your proof of such attributes? Just because you say them it doesn't mean they are factual realities. They might be to you but that doesn't give them any validity just because you make the claim.

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 01:47 AM ----------

jeeprs;170299 wrote:

Go on then. It would be:....

I have already mentioned it many times.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;170302 wrote:

...to make these claims...

Pardon me for assuming that the G you don't believe in was supernatural. If you want to make G into g, as a human with human attributes, well I must say that I don't believe in that g either.

Looks like we're in agreement.

But the popular depiction of G is a being that is not bound by the corporeal elements that humans are.

God
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality.

So are we discussing G or g?

I'm really confused. First you want to argue against G's existence, but upon the basis that it should not act like a human. But then claim that G only makes sense if it acts like a g-human.

What gives? Even science is looking for the ultimate underlying essence of existence. Whether it be the proto-particle, a Multiverse, or the TOE, a search for the ultimate quintessential essence of reality will not be required to think or act like a human. Why then should a G being be held to the standards of humans?

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;170306 wrote:

Pardon me for assuming that the G you don't believe in was supernatural. If you want to make G into g, as a human with human attributes, well I must say that I don't believe in that g either.

I am glad you are taking me up on this conversation. I feel like we can actually go somewhere with this now. I am not as close minded as I get accused of. I am trying to be fair with assessment but you must also agree that everyone's definition of god varies even amongst theists.

QuinticNon;170306 wrote:

Looks like we're in agreement.

But the popular depiction of G is a being that is not bound by the corporeal elements that humans are.

God
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality.

So are we discussing G or g?

Well that is where I begin. What I like to do is take each possibility and explore them. Reason them out. But I get accused from both theists and atheists about doing this.

From theists they say what I am doing is impossible.

From atheists they say what I am doing is giving validity to the theist argument by entertaining the idea that god is even plausible at all.

I want to be fair. After all it should be explored to be honest. If you just outright dismiss it without anything other than because you don't like it, the that is not a fair assessment. So I tackle the issue from all possible directions.

I play the game, if god were like A, what would that mean? What implications would follow if god were A? Then continue down the list of possibilities. So far from what I have reasoned, many of these supposed traits contradict themselves. If they are not contradicting themselves directly they are contradicting some other aspect, like motivation or purpose.

My argument is that if god created the universe in such a "balanced" way with such insight then by all means that god would have to have at least some level of logic. Yet as soon as I make the logic argument theists come back and say that god is not bound by the laws of logic. If that were true then why create a universe so full of logic then? To me that sounds like a person who hates eating a particular vegetable, decides to have it with every meal. It's self contradicting. If god is not bound by logic it does not stand that it would create a completely logical universe. Why would it find it necessary to create a world that was logical?

QuinticNon;170306 wrote:

I'm really confused. First you want to argue against G's existence, but upon the basis that it should not act like a human. But then claim that G only makes sense if it acts like a g-human.

Well I want to give it a fair shot. I am willing to entertain the theory that a god exists. However; I have never been supplied with any thing that would back up the theory. I get all sorts of theories thrown at me, but rarely are they consistent. If theists can not even agree to the attributes, how can anyone even know if any attributes at all are correct? It reminds me of a story about three blind men each touching a different part of an elephant. They each feel something different about the elephant and make the mistake in labeling the elephant only according to what they are experiencing.

If you are making the claim that god can not be known and no human can know god. Then absolutely NO attributes can be known with any certainty. You can't make claims like, god is all loving, all knowing, all powerful, or completely present. To make the argument fair, you would have to toss them out as well.

So any time someone makes a claim that god is such and such, better have something substantial to back it up otherwise it is nothing more than a guess in my opinion.

QuinticNon;170306 wrote:

What gives? Even science is looking for the ultimate underlying essence of existence. Whether it be the proto-particle, a Multiverse, or the TOE, a search for the ultimate quintessential essence of reality will not be required to think or act like a human. Why then should a G being be held to the standards of humans?

Well we don't need to stick to the standards, but you have to have a good support for it. One example of this is the bible. I'll try to quickly show how I deduce it.

p1. The bible was written from the inspiration of the concept of god.

p2. Humans can not determine the attributes of god.

q1. If the bible is only inspired by the concept of god, then it is fallible.

C1. If a god can not be determined, the concept of god itself is fallible.

This is one line of reasoning. You could dismiss the first premise and make the claim that god actually imbued the writers with knowledge. However that too must be examined then. I won't go into here because I only wanted to show the process. If you want I will gladly deduce the reasoning of that question though.

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

Quote:

I propose that the human condition IS the expectation of GTruth. We will understand the expectation at the very moment when we understand ourselves.

I would agree to a point, but would flip the final part and say: "We will understand ourselves at the very moment we understand God's truth."

I say this because without understanding (to an appropriate degree) the source, you cannot truly understand the effect. God is the source so a firm grasp of knowing him is the only way to know ourselves.

1 Reply

@cluckk,

cluckk;170346 wrote:

...flip the final part...

It's like saying, We'll understand ourselves when we understand ourselves, or We'll understand GT when we understand GT.

If we are IT, then we are the source.

Return to Delphi and "Know Thyself" is all that really need be said.

The Q should be, How do we know when we know GT?

How do we know when we know any Truth?

First, I must separate the common conflation of Truth and Reality. Since they are often depicted as synonyms, it is often difficult to appreciate the nuance differences between them.

To summarize the dictionary definitions...

Reality is That which actually exists.

Truth is A statement that corresponds with that which actually exists.

One is the description, the other the described.

We know reality through its interaction upon our five senses.

We know truth through statement of correspondence. We know deception through statements of non correspondence... statements that do not correspond with observed reality.

A statement is the expression of spoken or written words... Code.

Soooooo...

Since DNA is a code that instructs (makes statements) upon RNA's construction of us, ultimately forming words as genes that define WHAT we are, and since all codes have authors (no exceptions), and since Truth is a codified statement, then... WHAT we are, is the physical manifestation of GTruth.

Confirm that DNA is indeed a Truth statement by comparing the genetic code to its correspondence with reality. Forensics will confirm this for you after your next crime spree. WHAT WE ARE is the end result of a Truth statement.

But it doesn't stop there. Because beyond the initial Truth statement that brought us into existence, we also have the ability to author additional Truth statements above and beyond the initial description that birthed us.

"WHO" WE ARE is the end result of our own Truth statements.

In this manner, we create our very own spirit. A spirit of lust, a spirit of greed, a spirit of charity, a spirit of hope... Yes, we create many spirits. And the culmination of these spirits builds a soul.

If as I claimed before, that God = Truth = Information, then through our additional Truth statements beyond our initial genetic programming, we in deed, manifest GTruth into physical reality with every word that is crafted from our minds.

Is it out of line to consider that a GTruth being, consisting of purely immaterial Information, might desire to manifest all possible conditions that could express itself? One of those conditions might be a physical reality. A reality that consisted of new properties that do not exist in an immaterial realm. A reality based upon the physicality unattainable in an immaterial realm. A reality made of energy and matter... pure entropic noise. Yet by harnessing and reforming that noise into symbolic representation, an expression of GTruth is completely satisfied.

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 11:48 AM ----------

Krumple;170314 wrote:

...everyone's definition of god varies even amongst theists.

Agreed. I often view the word "God" the same as I view the words "Singularity", or "Random". They mean "THAT". Meaning... an observable or theoretical phenomenon which is beyond the cohesive and unified descriptive capacity of humans.

God, Singularity, Random... all just placeholder words for That. Yet it cannot be denied, that by claiming That, one has to some degree, detected That. If it has been detected, then That actually exists, albeit not necessarily in the manner in which the detection is capable of illustrating satisfactorily. And we must acknowledge that a detection of That, may indeed have completely reasonable explanations beyond the dogmatic.

Krumple;170314 wrote:

I tackle the issue from all possible directions.

Krumple;170314 wrote:

I play the game, if god were like A, what would that mean?

There are other ways to play the game too. All possible directions requires one to suppose also "if god were NOT like A, but also the essence of A, B, C, D, E combined".

God in a Box theology deceives everyone.

Krumple;170314 wrote:

If they are not contradicting themselves directly they are contradicting some other aspect, like motivation or purpose.

As humans, we aren't even capable of consistently determining the motivations or purpose of other humans. Yet we do allow for humans to possess many different motivations and purposes simultaneously. Why then should we not allow the same for G?

Krumple;170314 wrote:

...if god created the universe in such a "balanced" way with such insight then by all means that god would have to have at least some level of logic.

If as you claim, that G is a creation from the human mind, would you not also agree that notions of balance, insight, and logic are also creations from the human mind?

If as I claim, that G is not a creation from the human mind, how may we logically confine G to the notions from a human mind?

I have no doubt that arenas of paradox for human logic are completely satisfied and not so paradoxical in the realm of G.

Krumple;170314 wrote:

Yet as soon as I make the logic argument theists come back and say that god is not bound by the laws of logic. If that were true then why create a universe so full of logic then?

The laws of logic were written by humans. Logic is not a gift from the cosmos. Logic is a human description of the cosmos. The cosmos does not speak or offer logic to humans. It has no mind or mechanism to communicate such information. Claiming the cosmos is logical... is illogical.

It is the notion of paradox that baffles humans. Such is the nature of G.

Krumple;170314 wrote:

If god is not bound by logic it does not stand that it would create a completely logical universe.

Agreed.

Krumple;170314 wrote:

I have never been supplied with any thing that would back up the theory.

Who is the author of the genetic code? Logic demands we acknowledge that all codes have sentient authors. Insisting upon DNA not being a genuine code is illogical in the face of empirical evidence upon us.

It is illogical to address the laws of Information as the laws of Physics. Information is non-physical. Code is physical. One represents the other. My thoughts cannot be reduced to the pixels on your monitor. But the pixels on your monitor do represent my thoughts nonetheless.

Krumple;170314 wrote:

I get all sorts of theories thrown at me, but rarely are they consistent.

This I am sure of.

Krumple;170314 wrote:

If theists can not even agree to the attributes, how can anyone even know if any attributes at all are correct? It reminds me of a story about three blind men each touching a different part of an elephant.

But it's still an elephant, regardless of the individual perceptions of it. Descriptive liberty is a common tool.

Mathematics can describe a sunrise in great detail, but it can never tell me how I feel about it. Only poetry and song will suffice for that. And we must acknowledge that no one can see the entire sky at once. Shall we expect then for anyone to be capable of knowing the entire Truth at once?

It is beyond our human ability to do such a thing. We are, after all, not Gods, no matter how much we attempt to reduce God to our level.

Krumple;170314 wrote:

If you are making the claim that god can not be known and no human can know god. Then absolutely NO attributes can be known with any certainty.

We are blind. Yet you detect a snoot, and I detect a tail. Truth is earned, yet freely available to all who will seek it out. Work your way past that snoot and meet me in the middle.

Krumple;170314 wrote:

You can't make claims like, god is all loving, all knowing, all powerful, or completely present. To make the argument fair, you would have to toss them out as well.

God is all loving... To her.

God is all knowing... To him.

God is all powerful... To me.

It's good enough (for me) to claim that God IS... You know... I Am.

Likewise, the trip passed quickly for him, but for her, it was an eternity.

So how long was the trip?

Krumple;170314 wrote:

So any time someone makes a claim that god is such and such, better have something substantial to back it up otherwise it is nothing more than a guess in my opinion.

In your opinion, is your opinion substantial?

Krumple;170314 wrote:

The bible was written...

I'm not here to defend the bible.

2 Replies

Have I "debunked" God's existence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know