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

[Colin norris]

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?"​

​

​

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?"​

​

​

there's no yes and no about it--no one can prove he exists = no god...and, please, don't anyone say that stupid shit ''you can't prove he doesn't exist'''

I say we have a showdown like Elijah did against the prophets of Ba’al.

People who believe in humankind on one side and those who believe in God on the other side. Put two alters up with a lamb. Then ask a group of humans to consume the sacrifice and then have the other side ask God to consume the sacrifice.

Then we will know once and for all. Do humans exist or does God exist? We can’t have it both ways.

I've never heard such rubbish. That exercise is establishing anything but how loopy you are.

 

[Grumblenuts]

God? What for?

"DO I BELIEVE HUMANS EXIST?WHAT ARE THEY FOR?"

 

[Grumblenuts]

Hubris allows humans to imagine that they can define what is so far beyond them.

On the other hand, lack of hubris just leaves us all imagining we're incompetent:

To test Dunning and Kruger's hypotheses "that people, at all performance levels, are equally poor at estimating their relative performance", the 2006 study "Skilled or Unskilled, but Still Unaware of It: How Perceptions of Difficulty Drive Miscalibration in Relative Comparisons"[17] investigated three studies that manipulated the "perceived difficulty of the tasks, and, hence, [the] participants' beliefs about their relative standing". The investigation indicated that when the experimental subjects were presented with moderately difficult tasks, there was little variation among the best performers and the worst performers in their ability to predict their performance accurately. With more difficult tasks, the best performers were less accurate in predicting their performance than were the worst performers. Therefore, judges at all levels of skill are subject to similar degrees of error in the performance of tasks.

The kid wins.

"Gods"? Wtf?

 

[Grumblenuts]

To clarify, I'm challenging the assertion that (humans) "imagine that they can define what is so far beyond them." Certainly true of many no doubt, but not all by a long shot. This is what scientific method does for us. We don't need to invent gods to explain everything anymore, though clearly many still feel that we do. We're generally getting better at understanding everything and communicating it all at blinding, previously unfathomable speeds. To still be sitting around obsessed with some stupid shit people wrote thousands of years ago is pretty stupid. Instead, we should be facing today's issues head on, fully armed with a healthy appreciation of what we can now all understand far better thanks to our practicing of tons of science in the meantime.

That said, we would likely be much more advanced by now we're it not for the hubris of some key individuals who screwed things up royally at just the right time.

 

[schmidlap]

To clarify, I'm challenging the assertion that (humans) "imagine that they can define what is so far beyond them." Certainly true of many no doubt, but not all by a long shot. This is what scientific method does for us. We don't need to invent gods to explain everything anymore, though clearly many still feel that we do. We're generally getting better at understanding everything and communicating it all at blinding, previously unfathomable speeds. To still be sitting around obsessed with some stupid shit people wrote thousands of years ago is pretty stupid. Instead, we should be facing today's issues head on, fully armed with a healthy appreciation of what we can now all understand far better thanks to our practicing of tons of science in the meantime.

That said, we would likely be much more advanced by now we're it not for the hubris of some key individuals who screwed things up royally at just the right time.

Consider fallible, finite humankind being presented with a challenge: Define the nature of infallible denizens of infinity, tenaciously invisible and determinately unverifiable through any of the human senses through which humans detect and assess reality. (Why have they decided to be so elusive? They ain't tellin'!)

Given that humans have contrived such a broad array of solutions to the challenge - no gods, many gods, just one god - and have provided such a wide variety of conflicting profiles over time - What is the reliability of even the most confident eyewitness account when there are no eyewitnesses?

What are the chances of a human acing the challenge?

Yet, across the gamut of monotheists, polytheists, and atheists, there are continually lurid, conflicting accounts distinguished by their smugness, folks with no verifiable data whatever hubristically proclaiming,

"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

"Everybody's talkin' at me
I don't hear a word they're sayin'
Only the echoes of my mind..."
​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To clarify, I'm challenging the assertion that (humans) "imagine that they can define what is so far beyond them." Certainly true of many no doubt, but not all by a long shot. This is what scientific method does for us. We don't need to invent gods to explain everything anymore, though clearly many still feel that we do. We're generally getting better at understanding everything and communicating it all at blinding, previously unfathomable speeds. To still be sitting around obsessed with some stupid shit people wrote thousands of years ago is pretty stupid. Instead, we should be facing today's issues head on, fully armed with a healthy appreciation of what we can now all understand far better thanks to our practicing of tons of science in the meantime.

That said, we would likely be much more advanced by now we're it not for the hubris of some key individuals who screwed things up royally at just the right time.

Consider fallible, finite humankind being presented with a challenge: Define the nature of infallible denizens of infinity, tenaciously invisible and determinately unverifiable through any of the human senses through which humans detect and assess reality. (Why have they decided to be so elusive? They ain't tellin'!)

Given that humans have contrived such a broad array of solutions to the challenge - no gods, many gods, just one god - and have provided such a wide variety of conflicting profiles over time - What is the reliability of even the most confident eyewitness account when there are no eyewitnesses?

What are the chances of a human acing the challenge?

Yet, across the gamut of monotheists, polytheists, and atheists, there are continually lurid, conflicting accounts distinguished by their smugness, folks with no verifiable data whatever hubristically proclaiming,

View attachment 494194
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494201
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494195
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494198
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494199
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494205
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494215
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494217
"Everybody's talkin' at me
I don't hear a word they're sayin'
Only the echoes of my mind..."
​

Dawkins explicitly and freely admits that there may be gods. And when it comes to biology...yeah, he is right. And we are wrong.

 

[schmidlap]

Dawkins explicitly and freely admits that there may be gods. And when it comes to biology...yeah, he is right. And we are wrong.

Dawkins could be right in the matter of the gods - as could anyone with antithetical notions.

Personally, I much prefer the less confrontational and dogmatic tone of Steve Gould. I asked him once whether he saw god questions as being within the purview of religion and separate and distinct from his realm of science. He adamantly agreed that he was weary of having the god business thrust upon him.

He had observed that "the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs — and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature’s factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap."

 

[surada]

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?"​

​

​

When people say that you can't understand God, I ask why not? Is He incapable of rational communication?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dawkins could be right in the matter of the gods - as could anyone with antithetical notions.

He basically says he doesn't know for sure either way.

ersonally, I much prefer the less confrontational and dogmatic tone of Steve Gould.

I can understand that. But Dawkins isn't trying to coddle and influence people with niceties. He is in the arena of adult discourse on the issues where the thoughts are laid out clearly and tersely. I don't feel it is incumbent upon him or anyone else in this arena to account for people's feelings and fetishes. If people take the criticism of an idea personally, that's their problem.

 

[schmidlap]

When people say that you can't understand God, I ask why not? Is He incapable of rational communication?

Gods are capable of rational as well as irrational communication, but gods have no discernible reason to communicate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but gods have no discernible reason to communicate.

Ha... they don't? A personal God has no discernible reason to communicate? I could think of a few. You could make arguments to dismiss them, but those are arguments, not knowledge.

 

[schmidlap]

He basically says he doesn't know for sure either way.

He could well be as right as one can get in not knowing either way, but he is a scientist, and science is a separate and distinct realm with separate and distinct requirements. A musician or an artist is equally qualified to opine on religion from their perspectives.

I can understand that. But Dawkins isn't trying to coddle and influence people with niceties. He is in the arena of adult discourse on the issues where the thoughts are laid out clearly and tersely. I don't feel it is incumbent upon him or anyone else in this arena to account for people's feelings and fetishes. If people take the criticism of an idea personally, that's their problem.

He speaks to religionists from his scientific view of existence. In that, he engages religionists who irrationally regard science as threatening - probably because religionists had subjugated science, and science has put them in their place.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He could well be as right as one can get in not knowing either way, but he is a scientist, and science is a separate and distinct realm with separate and distinct requirements.

One might say the question of whether or not gods exist IS a scientific question. But since we are talking magic, a problem arises: there can never be evidence for or against magic. Magic violates causality/determinism and natural law, which are necessary for the concept of evidence.

He speaks to religionists from his scientific view of existence.

He speaks to everyone from that "view" (undefined as it is). But I see your point.

 

[schmidlap]

One might say the question of whether or not gods exist IS a scientific question.

Science deals in empirical data, religions in beliefs.

Science is not a matter of faith. Religions are not matters of proofs. As Gould stated it, the disparate disciplines have “non-overlapping magisteria.” There is no justification for either to embrace or be contemptuous of the other, unless one arrogates the purview of the other.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science deals in empirical data, religions in beliefs.

True. But that doesn't contradict what I said. "Religion" =/= existence of gods. These are not equivalent ideas.

I agree on "zero overlap", and this is because of magic.

 

[BreezeWood]

To clarify, I'm challenging the assertion that (humans) "imagine that they can define what is so far beyond them." Certainly true of many no doubt, but not all by a long shot. This is what scientific method does for us. We don't need to invent gods to explain everything anymore, though clearly many still feel that we do. We're generally getting better at understanding everything and communicating it all at blinding, previously unfathomable speeds. To still be sitting around obsessed with some stupid shit people wrote thousands of years ago is pretty stupid. Instead, we should be facing today's issues head on, fully armed with a healthy appreciation of what we can now all understand far better thanks to our practicing of tons of science in the meantime.

That said, we would likely be much more advanced by now we're it not for the hubris of some key individuals who screwed things up royally at just the right time.

Consider fallible, finite humankind being presented with a challenge: Define the nature of infallible denizens of infinity, tenaciously invisible and determinately unverifiable through any of the human senses through which humans detect and assess reality. (Why have they decided to be so elusive? They ain't tellin'!)

Given that humans have contrived such a broad array of solutions to the challenge - no gods, many gods, just one god - and have provided such a wide variety of conflicting profiles over time - What is the reliability of even the most confident eyewitness account when there are no eyewitnesses?

What are the chances of a human acing the challenge?

Yet, across the gamut of monotheists, polytheists, and atheists, there are continually lurid, conflicting accounts distinguished by their smugness, folks with no verifiable data whatever hubristically proclaiming,

View attachment 494194
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494201
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494195
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494198
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494199
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494205
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494215
"I've got it right!
Everybody else is wrong!"

View attachment 494217
"Everybody's talkin' at me
I don't hear a word they're sayin'
Only the echoes of my mind..."
​

.

This is what scientific method does for us. We don't need to invent gods to explain everything anymore

Consider fallible, finite humankind being presented with a challenge: Define the nature of infallible denizens of infinity, tenaciously invisible and determinately unverifiable through any of the human senses through which humans detect and assess reality. (Why have they decided to be so elusive? They ain't tellin'!)

What are the chances of a human acing the challenge?

.
im not sure shiplap responded to the criteria of - becoming pure - to determinately have the prerequisite to then define nature as the price first in doing so - the religion of antiquity, as that means to do so - for who might chose the endeavor.

the necessary sense for all others - acquiring the spirits immortality.

 

[Grumblenuts]

One might say the question of whether or not gods exist IS a scientific question.

Science deals in empirical data, religions in beliefs.

Science is not a matter of faith. Religions are not matters of proofs. As Gould stated it, the disparate disciplines have “non-overlapping magisteria.” There is no justification for either to embrace or be contemptuous of the other, unless one arrogates the purview of the other.

Yeah, sounds good and fancy. But no, at root "science" is just another word for "study." Example:

//the science of theology

Stuff that in Jay's pipe. It's the method that makes all the difference.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

If it is impossible to comprehend God, then all the descriptions are false, and there is no reason to construct activities designed to please the incomprehensible entity, because how do we know it pleases the incomprehensible entity?

Why would the incomprehensible entity appreciate activities meant to please it, if it did not ask?

Why are you concerned about describing the god?

 

[ding]

If it is impossible to comprehend God, then all the descriptions are false, and there is no reason to construct activities designed to please the incomprehensible entity, because how do we know it pleases the incomprehensible entity?

Why would the incomprehensible entity appreciate activities meant to please it, if it did not ask?

Why are you concerned about describing the god?

It's all part of the conflict and confusion process of discovering truth.

 

[ding]

One might say the question of whether or not gods exist IS a scientific question.

Science deals in empirical data, religions in beliefs.

Science is not a matter of faith. Religions are not matters of proofs. As Gould stated it, the disparate disciplines have “non-overlapping magisteria.” There is no justification for either to embrace or be contemptuous of the other, unless one arrogates the purview of the other.

Yeah, sounds good and fancy. But no, at root "science" is just another word for "study." Example:

//the science of theology

Stuff that in Jay's pipe. It's the method that makes all the difference.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

Science is freaking awesome. God loves science. He created it.