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

[Taz]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I'm looking for your invisible creator. What's the point of making it so hard to find? Makes no sense.

Again... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

How am I supposed to know what I'm looking for if nobody else can find it either?

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

I'm looking for god. How many time do I have to say it?

How many times do I have to say... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

I've looked for god.

 

[Meriweather]

I've looked for god.

Where? Are you looking for specific clues? If so, what are the clues for which you are searching?

 

[Taz]

I've looked for god.

Where? Are you looking for specific clues? If so, what are the clues for which you are searching?

I've got my heart open, not sure what I'm supposed to look for... A clue? A sign? ...

 

[Meriweather]

I've got my heart open, not sure what I'm supposed to look for... A clue? A sign? ...

Much easier than that. No matter what you are doing, what comes your way, ask yourself, "How can I best serve God in this situation."

 

[Taz]

I've got my heart open, not sure what I'm supposed to look for... A clue? A sign? ...

Much easier than that. No matter what you are doing, what comes your way, ask yourself, "How can I best serve God in this situation."

Serve someone I can't find? Hmmm... I need a little more than that.

 

[Meriweather]

Serve someone I can't find? Hmmm... I need a little more than that.

Wrong question.

 

[Taz]

Serve someone I can't find? Hmmm... I need a little more than that.

Wrong question.

What does that mean? Why when it comes to god you're all secretive?

 

[Meriweather]

What does that mean? Why when it comes to god you're all secretive?

First, I am not being secretive.
Second: Why do you wish to find God?

 

[ding]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I'm looking for your invisible creator. What's the point of making it so hard to find? Makes no sense.

Again... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

How am I supposed to know what I'm looking for if nobody else can find it either?

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

I'm looking for god. How many time do I have to say it?

How many times do I have to say... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

I've looked for god.

uh huh. When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, marinate on it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

1. Theists positively claim (assert) that at least one god exists. Often that just one god exists.
2. Atheists respond that existence of any god remains unproven, not disproved.
3. In any argument, the burden of proof is on those making positive claims.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Dismissed. The subject is neither ignorance nor argument from ignorance. Back up your claims.

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

Dismissed. First prove your "God" here exists. Asserting things you feel incapable of backing up or proving is illogical.

Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed. - Dan Barker

 

[ding]

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

1. Theists positively claim (assert) that at least one god exists. Often that just one god exists.
2. Atheists respond that existence of any god remains unproven, not disproved.
3. In any argument, the burden of proof is on those making positive claims.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Dismissed. The subject is neither ignorance nor argument from ignorance. Back up your claims.

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

Dismissed. First prove your "God" here exists. Asserting things you feel incapable of backing up or proving is illogical.

Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed. - Dan Barker

Again... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

 

[ding]

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

1. Theists positively claim (assert) that at least one god exists. Often that just one god exists.
2. Atheists respond that existence of any god remains unproven, not disproved.
3. In any argument, the burden of proof is on those making positive claims.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Dismissed. The subject is neither ignorance nor argument from ignorance. Back up your claims.

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

Dismissed. First prove your "God" here exists. Asserting things you feel incapable of backing up or proving is illogical.

Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed. - Dan Barker

There is no evidence you will accept.

 

[BreezeWood]

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

1. Theists positively claim (assert) that at least one god exists. Often that just one god exists.
2. Atheists respond that existence of any god remains unproven, not disproved.
3. In any argument, the burden of proof is on those making positive claims.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Dismissed. The subject is neither ignorance nor argument from ignorance. Back up your claims.

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

Dismissed. First prove your "God" here exists. Asserting things you feel incapable of backing up or proving is illogical.

Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed. - Dan Barker

There is no evidence you will accept.

.

There is no evidence you will accept.

.
do you see who you talk to, you claim, is god - how is the voice manifest. use a wire and make a recording and do a selfy and post both in this thread and maybe the acusation you and meriweather are raving lunatics will be rexamined with a more reasonable result obtained ... but, for you two, I doubt it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There is no evidence you will accept.

Dismissed. Scientific evidence accepted any day, all day long.

 

[ding]

There is no evidence you will accept.

Dismissed. Scientific evidence accepted any day, all day long.

What scientific evidence are you expecting to find, oh disingenuous one?

 

[Slyhunter]

There is no evidence you will accept.

Dismissed. Scientific evidence accepted any day, all day long.

What scientific evidence are you expecting to find, oh disingenuous one?

If has but on iota of spiritual belief you can move mountains. show me a moving mountain.

 

[ding]

There is no evidence you will accept.

Dismissed. Scientific evidence accepted any day, all day long.

What scientific evidence are you expecting to find, oh disingenuous one?

If has but on iota of spiritual belief you can move mountains. show me a moving mountain.

Who knows what is possible when consciousness evolves beyond our present limitations. Do you?

In the meantime would you settle for a metamorphosis instead? Or maybe a resurrection?

 

[Hollie]

My perception of God is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. Such that mind has always existed: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued his creation with His attributes.

Man's capacity to conceive of infinite perfection while acknowledging man's incapacity to ever understand or attain it is wonderfully human.

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” ~ ROBERT BROWNING

I’m not so sure that mankind has conceived infinite perfection within the gods they invented and attributed with human emotions. Religionists assert the various human assigned attributes of their gods and not the anthropomorphic ones-- they assert their gods represent “perfection” and then assign to them emotions like love, jealousy, anger, vengeance, and so on. Each of those attributes assumes some lack or need that is required to be satisfied. That immediately defuses claim that the gods are in some way eternally perfect. I would suggest that christian religionists might better try to make the case that because one of their gods cannot experience sin and such “human experience”, “he” needed to do it by proxy through mankind [though why any gods need to satisfy this need also fatally flaws that argument, in my opinion].

 

[Grumblenuts]

To me, perfection would be everyone purposely living peacefully and sustainably. Sharing instead of reaching or grasping for more. Satisfied with enough. Longing for, if anything, less consumption / greater efficiency. Forever mindful of the future. Never just living for today. Good shepherds watching over all flocks to the best of their abilities.

A mankind's got to know its limitations ~ DIRTY HARRY

 

[Grumblenuts]

Who knows what is possible when consciousness evolves beyond our present limitations. Do you?

In the meantime would you settle for a metamorphosis instead? Or maybe a resurrection?

Truly, you wear whataboutism like a jackass.