If you are human, you are not capable of understanding God.

[schmidlap]

You have a million bucks I could use, I'll pay you back in the afterlife.

The "Afterlife"?

I have made no plans for an "afterlife," and won't be the least bit surprised if it is very similar to my pre-life.

(With interest?)

 

[ding]

Just curious... do you really concern yourself with all living things? What would that look like in actuality? My point here is that our immediate concern should be to progress ourselves into becoming the best versions of ourselves. Because then the concern for other living beings - that we actually do come into contact with - will work itself out for their betterment organically, wouldn't you agree?

I subscribe to Darwin's view of biological evolution: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved,” the "Creator" being beyond our comprehension, but creation within our capacity for awe.

"To progress ourselves into becoming the best versions of ourselves," does not indicate what that may be, and there appears to be much subjectivity in defining it.

It's comparative. So it's pretty easy to measure.

 

[schmidlap]

It's comparative. So it's pretty easy to measure.

I have no idea what metrics are applied to measure human "progress" in general, although aspects of it are readily subject to assessment.

 

[ding]

It's comparative. So it's pretty easy to measure.

I have no idea what metrics are applied to measure human "progress" in general, although aspects of it are readily subject to assessment.

If you can't tell then you probably aren't. Only a good man knows how bad he is. A bad man has no clue.

 

[schmidlap]

If you can't tell then you probably aren't. Only a good man knows how bad he is. A bad man has no clue.

If that is your opinion, so be it.

Self-assessment is often highly suspect.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Does God exist?

Yes and no.

God is not constrained by existence one way or the other.

No one can impose existence upon God, or deprive God of it.

God is none, or one, or many.

Or all simultaneously.

Or not.

That is what it means to be God.

If you insist God exists, God does not exist.

If you insist God does not exist, God exists.

God does that to remind you that you are not God.

It takes one to know one.

It's way above your pay grade.

View attachment 480914​

​

​

​

View attachment 480917​

"DO I BELIEVE HUMANS EXIST?​

WHAT ARE THEY FOR?"​

​

​

Of course we can understand all the gods, because we invented them. Next you are going to tell me Edison could not understand the light bulb.

 

[ding]

If you can't tell then you probably aren't. Only a good man knows how bad he is. A bad man has no clue.

If that is your opinion, so be it.

Self-assessment is often highly suspect.

It depends. There are only three possible states.

 

[ding]

Does God exist?

Yes and no.

God is not constrained by existence one way or the other.

No one can impose existence upon God, or deprive God of it.

God is none, or one, or many.

Or all simultaneously.

Or not.

That is what it means to be God.

If you insist God exists, God does not exist.

If you insist God does not exist, God exists.

God does that to remind you that you are not God.

It takes one to know one.

It's way above your pay grade.

View attachment 480914​

​

​

​

View attachment 480917​

"DO I BELIEVE HUMANS EXIST?​

WHAT ARE THEY FOR?"​

​

​

Of course we can understand all the gods, because we invented them. Next you are going to tell me Edison could not understand the light bulb.

Your God is you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your God is you.

That's something a religious goober would say. I , on the other hand, recognize no gods and have no need for any. I do not share your handicap.

 

[ding]

Your God is you.

That's something a religious goober would say. I , on the other hand, recognize no gods and have no need for any. I do not share your handicap.

Just marinate on it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your God is you.

That's something a religious goober would say. I , on the other hand, recognize no gods and have no need for any. I do not share your handicap.

Just marinate on it.

You believe in your god because you want to be godlike and live forever. I am not hindered by this selfish handicap.

 

[schmidlap]

Of course we can understand all the gods, because we invented them. Next you are going to tell me Edison could not understand the light bulb.

"Man can embody truth but he cannot know it." Yeats

Edison is commonly credited with inventing the light bulb, but Joseph Swan, Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans are among those with credible claims to the distinction as well. In any event, all had only a rudimentary understanding of electricity, but did not let that stop them.

 

[schmidlap]

It depends. There are only three possible states.

If you say so.

 

[ding]

Your God is you.

That's something a religious goober would say. I , on the other hand, recognize no gods and have no need for any. I do not share your handicap.

Just marinate on it.

You believe in your god because you want to be godlike and live forever. I am not hindered by this selfish handicap.

I worship God because that's what I was made for. So were you.

 

[ding]

It depends. There are only three possible states.

If you say so.

I don't say so. Logic says so.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

There's nothing wrong with using our experiences as proxies just as long as we don't humanize God to the point that we make God human

Except God made himself human. He gave us everything we need to know about God. The left (and some on the right) just refuse to accept His revelation.

I dont need to know what some theologian theorizes about the nature of God when I can simply read the Instruction Manual He left behind for us

 

[BreezeWood]

I recognize that god, omniscient, omnipotent and eternal by definition, is far beyond my humble understanding and capacity to impose my limited conceptualization upon.

is that your definition, or that of forgeries and fallacies you are facilitating.

It is the generally-accepted definition of a god as a supreme entity, with no recourse to sectarian niceties.

My acknowledging my inability to comprehend or tell a god what a god must be is an implicit acknowledgement that I am not one.

I cannot dictate to a god regarding a god's existence. A god can exist as none, as one, as many, or as all of those, and can do so simultaneously.

For a god, all things are possible, and that necessarily includes what is beyond human comprehension.

.

is that your definition, or that of forgeries and fallacies you are facilitating.

It is the generally-accepted definition of a god as a supreme entity, with no recourse to sectarian niceties.

My acknowledging my inability to comprehend or tell a god what a god must be is an implicit acknowledgement that I am not one.

For a god, all things are possible, and that necessarily includes what is beyond human comprehension

.
without sectarian niceties - would there be gods ...

or your statement implies a secular god that in fact is the formula most likely true as spirits, evolution and the metaphysical are all secular in nature. void of - "sectarian niceties", religion.

- are you incapable of becoming a god.
.
.
why just human comprehension -
.

.
other beings in fact comprehend on a higher level than humans in certain areas does not mean there is a limit for either to become godly - if the tiger is not already there. and many other species. just incomplete as humans.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course we can understand all the gods, because we invented them. Next you are going to tell me Edison could not understand the light bulb.

"Man can embody truth but he cannot know it." Yeats

Edison is commonly credited with inventing the light bulb, but Joseph Swan, Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans are among those with credible claims to the distinction as well. In any event, all had only a rudimentary understanding of electricity, but did not let that stop them.

And now college freshmen understand it. And you dodged my point. Why start a thread, then dodge the points in the on topic responses?

 

[BreezeWood]

MLK responds...

"...We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. This applies to the power of a gun, or a drug, or an argument, or even a sermon! Does it achieve its end? Does it fulfill its purpose?

We must realize that God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. We can see this clearly in human illustrations. My purpose in doing a crossword puzzle is not to fill in certain words. I could fill them in easily by waiting for tomorrow morning's paper. Filling them in without the answers is harder but much more satisfying, for it calls out resourcefulness, ingenuity, and discipline which by the easier way would find no self expression.

God is beyond the comprehension of finite beings, certainly their capacity to define a god's "purpose" - although many attempt it.

.

God is beyond the comprehension of finite beings, certainly their capacity to define a god's "purpose" - although many attempt it.

.
their physiology or the unique spiritual content comprising a particular being - is finite or you are saying they both will perish the same.

 

[BreezeWood]

And after we have done that?

After we have done that, we return from whence we came, the fortuitous confluence of atoms again integrating with the universe.

.

After we have done that, we return from whence we came, the fortuitous confluence of atoms again integrating with the universe.

.
is that physiology and includes that particular spiritual content or might they be separate with a destination possible for the latter without the relevance for the former you have implied.

from whence we came - the Everlasting. for some.