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

[BreezeWood]

Richard Dawkins says that most people are atheist to the tens of thousands of gods throughout the history of the world. We just go one god further. Something like that.

That attitude is far more practicable than the corollary, the "grass is always greener" perspective, where everybody else's god looks better than yours.

It's a pretty disingenuous argument to say that different perceptions of God means different Gods. As near as I can tell, there are no religions that believe in multiple gods. I certainly don't believe that people of other faiths are worshiping a different God. I think the only people who think that are really arguing there is no God. So that argument seems almost like an admission that they have no good argument to make.

.

- there are no religions that believe in multiple gods.

.
oh, try the original religion of antiquity -
.

"Let us make man ...

.
too bad for you bing, not all your written 24,000 documents were able to whitewash the true religion -

becoming a god is the idea, for admission to the Everlasting - with perhaps an almighty on top - for giggles. that would be you bing or the new guy, schmidlap.

 

[ding]

Not exactly. None of the other religions claimed to be a revealed religion. They only claimed to be men seeking God. Christianity is the only religion which makes the claim to be God seeking men.

Mind you I don't scoff or denigrate religions which are men seeking God. On the contrary I believe much can be gleamed about God from men seeking God. Which is probably why all major religions are more similar than dissimilar.

You have your favorite religion. There is nothing surprising about that.

That appears to be true of most religionists.

And apparently you have yours so it would also be true for you as well, right?

 

[Meriweather]

How else does the god off with the Egyptian god of the 10 plagues make sense?

That from a supreme being shows a need to play games with lowly life forms.......,, drowns the world (Noah) then start over now says I will kill off most of you soon (revelations) and bring back a select few in a new earth and a new heavens, it makes no sense at all.

If it doesn't make sense, that is our first clue we have it wrong. It is certainly not how the people of the time saw it. How did they see it?

 

[there4eyeM]

One basic problem is human perception. We can only perceive by contrasts. Warm is not cold, etc.
If there were what is referred to as 'God' of which everything were part, there would be no 'not-God' for us to experience. Therefor, were could not detect this 'God' as this 'God' would be all and everything.
Of course, on the other hand, if there were no such 'God', we, by definition, could not perceive such a One, either.
In this situation, a human has only one way to know the veracity of claims for the existence of a supreme being; direct revelation.

 

[schmidlap]

You have your favorite religion. There is nothing surprising about that.

That appears to be true of most religionists.

And apparently you have yours so it would also be true for you as well, right?

If I were to ever settle on any particular religion exclusively, I expect that will be the case.

 

[ding]

You have your favorite religion. There is nothing surprising about that.

That appears to be true of most religionists.

And apparently you have yours so it would also be true for you as well, right?

If I were to ever settle on any particular religion exclusively, I expect that will be the case.

How many different gods are you worshiping now?

 

[schmidlap]

... the omnipotent nature of god, by definition, means that god can be none, one, or many simultaneously.

Well if you don't believe in any maybe you should stop making the argument like there are supposedly many.

I do not argue that there are, supposedly, none.

I do not make the argument that there is, supposedly, one.

I don't make the argument that there are, supposedly, many.

I recognize that a god, omnipotent by human definition, can be all three simultaneously.

A god transcends the necessarily limited human concept of existence, and no human can limit a god to comply with the human concept.

 

[schmidlap]

How many different gods are you worshiping now?

It is beyond my human understanding whether god is none, one, many, or all three - or others besides.

I cannot impose numbers upon god for my convenience.

 

[ding]

... the omnipotent nature of god, by definition, means that god can be none, one, or many simultaneously.

Well if you don't believe in any maybe you should stop making the argument like there are supposedly many.

I do not argue that there are, supposedly, none.

I do not make the argument that there is, supposedly, one.

I don't make the argument that there are, supposedly, many.

I recognize that a god, omnipotent by human definition, can be all three simultaneously.

A god transcends the necessarily limited human concept of existence, and no human can limit a god to comply with the human concept.

What does all that mean exactly? Explain it to me like I am a six year old.

 

[ding]

How many different gods are you worshiping now?

It is beyond my human understanding whether god is none, one, many, or all three - or others besides.

I cannot impose numbers upon god for my convenience.

Still not getting what you are laying down, Patrick.

 

[Slyhunter]

Whether God is real, infinite, finite, big, or small doesn't change the fact that he didn't write the Bible.

 

[Meriweather]

Whether God is real, infinite, finite, big, or small doesn't change the fact that he didn't write the Bible.

Correct, it was written by humans of yesteryear and most modern day humans haven't a clue as to what our ancestors actually said or the points they were making. Compared to our ancestors, we are idiots--more knowledgeable--but idiots all the same.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Compared to our ancestors, we are idiots--more knowledgeable--but idiots all the same.

In some ways, I think we can all agree on that,.. especially the part about you being an idiot,.. get drunk, strip, and have unbridled sex,.. given all have had their shots and agree to wear their masks at least half the time..

 

[ding]

Compared to our ancestors, we are idiots--more knowledgeable--but idiots all the same.

In some ways, I think we can all agree on that,.. especially the part about you being an idiot,.. get drunk, strip, and have unbridled sex,.. given all have had their shots and agree to wear their masks at least half the time..

Actually, no, we can't all agree on her being an idiot. I'd love to know what data you are basing your opinion on.

 

[schmidlap]

What does all that mean exactly? Explain it to me like I am a six year old.

It means that a god can be none, one, or many - even simultaneously. To insist otherwise is to attempt to limit god.

No human can impose his concept of existence upon a god.

 

[ding]

What does all that mean exactly? Explain it to me like I am a six year old.

It means that a god can be none, one, or many - even simultaneously. To insist otherwise is to attempt to limit god.

No human can impose his concept of existence upon a god.

How can a god be none?

 

[BreezeWood]

What does all that mean exactly? Explain it to me like I am a six year old.

It means that a god can be none, one, or many - even simultaneously. To insist otherwise is to attempt to limit god.

No human can impose his concept of existence upon a god.

.

No human can impose his concept of existence upon a god.

.
If you are human, you are not capable of understanding God.
.
is their anything you can do ... howabout washing a truck.

 

[Meriweather]

Actually, no

because it is best to stay on topic when someone tries to get boringly personal. Schmidlap set up an interesting thread topic which I would like to continue following--and respecting.

 

[Meriweather]

It means that a god can be none, one, or many - even simultaneously. To insist otherwise is to attempt to limit god.

I am not sure I follow "none", but one or many leads me to contemplating something greater than three dimensions. If there should be more than three dimensions would one seem like many, or many like one? A many multi-dimensional being would indeed make it impossible for a three-dimensional being to truly know the multi-dimensional being.

 

[ding]

Actually, no

because it is best to stay on topic when someone tries to get boringly personal. Schmidlap set up an interesting thread topic which I would like to continue following--and respecting.

What is this best that you speak of?

I don't disagree with you but I don't always do the right or best thing. But I will respect your wishes as I already made my point by asking the question.