@failures art,
Quote:I thought god would be natural in your view? Now it must sepersede definition? My must it doe this? Apply this same logic to gravity. Because we do not fully understand it right now, does that mean that it's explanation is outside of our ability as humans to comprehend? I think that is projecting a bit much.
How do you define natural? Does something need to be within the scope of your understanding to be considered natural?
We aren't considering gravity to be a creator of any sort. Gravity appears as a function within the reference of supposed creation, we have every reason to expect some understanding of it's definition.
Quote:You aren't a photograph though. If you start from the position that you are a part of someone else's design so you can't comprehend the photo, you restrict your own ability to think outside of that frame.
No one said anyone was a photograph.
You are assuming it is possible to think outside the frame.
You simply refused to put yourself within the analogy, then used knowledge outside the analogy in an attempt to avoid the point.
What makes you think that you can acquire any knowledge that could be considered outside the range of the supposed creation of an infinite universe?
Quote:Such as? Why assume an invisible silent and singular (you keep using singular terms but how did you arrive at n=1?) being has any role in the universe you live in?
I use the singular for the sake of expediency, there is no reason to discard a commitee model for creation.
The only role I'm ascribing is that of creator. I don't have any problem calling that an hypothesis. My purpose here is simply to defend the pursuit of an hypothesis, of god as creator, as rational.
Quote:If you're going to do this in frame out of frame thing, then you can't really say god is natural. If gods are not subject to the rules of nature, they are supernatural. Defending such a realm of existence (read: outside of the frame) is without any foundation.
We can use supernatural in this context if you like. Earlier, though, you defined supernatural as magic, that's a different context, and incorrect.
The foundation for a defense of such a realm lies in the question of the possible extent of human knowledge. You have no more reason to assume that human knowledge is the be all end all of existence, than I have to assume it is not.
Quote:We have no reason to assume anything here, and yet you make numerous assumptions in your arguments. Even assuming that a god must supersede human definition is attributing qualities and making assumptions. You assume a singular deity. You make many assumptions.
I've explained the singular term.
I've made a reasonable assumption that a creator god exists outside the scope of his creation. so what. This is an hypothesis, it's a reasonable assumption based on limited human knowledge.
Quote:I disagree. I think it's the most powerful argument against religion, but by itself it does nothing to refute the idea of an infinite amount of hypothetical malevolent gods. Is the idea that we should only believe in gods if we like them?
I'm ok with this. I hope the a god/gods would be benevolent, but it really outside the scope of my current hypothesis.
Quote:Ants don't get a choice whether or not to believe in boys with magnifying glasses. At least the boy is real.
You're assuming a lot about the comprehension capabilities of an ant.
