For all the ex-religious.

[Mogi67]

They can, so long as their arguments for social justice (or whatever) isn't tangled up in ****ing Revelations or the immaculate conception.

You are making the all too common mistake of confusing discrediting religion with the discrediting of theists themselves. That's a cheap defense mechanism that allows you think the militant godless are gnashing their teeth at you from all sides, slavering and itching to rip your faith away and tear it to shreds.



:|

Arguments made by, say, Christians on moral or ethical grounds are inherently based on their theology. If you're discrediting their theology then you discredit their justification for said moral/ethical argument.

 

[Absinthe]

Arguments made by, say, Christians on moral or ethical grounds are inherently based on their theology. If you're discrediting their theology then you discredit their justification for said moral/ethical argument.

I sincerely doubt most Christians base their entire moral compass on their theological teachings. If that were the case, I think we'd be far worse off. I think there are a lot of "CINOs" who identify themselves as being Christian but still do a bad job of practicing the faith.

But while I will discredit their theology, I will not discredit theists themselves. You should be able to find merit in secular arguments, independent of god belief. Whatever issues I may have with your theism, it's not going to be a problem unless you inject it into the discussion. For instance, we should both be able to agree that needless human suffering should be diminished without you having to quote the Bible in support of that claim.

If that's not possible, then yeah. Discredited!

 

[Tyguy]

Arguments made by, say, Christians on moral or ethical grounds are inherently based on their theology.

This does not apply to every Christian considering many hold beliefs which do not conform to their religion.

If you're discrediting their theology then you discredit their justification for said moral/ethical argument.

If moral/ethical issues are based solely on religious context then yes, their justification should be discredited. Theological morality is unsubstantiated as right and wrong are dictated, not reasoned.

 

[Noodle]

Let me take a stab at this.

Firstly, using Dawkins' reasoning, man couldn't have created God because if man fashions a transcendent and all-powerful God out his own imagination, the creation is greater than the creator, so that either means we are incredibly improbable as a species but exist despite of that which debunks his
probability theory further, or we simply did not create God.

Secondly, the argument for the improbability of God as advanced by Dawkins and others boils down to 1) by common consent, the universe is a highly improbable and complex system; 2) if God created the universe he must be more complex than the universe he created; therefore 3) God is less probable than the universe and he himself is fantastically improbable so therefore can't exist.

blahblahblah rest of post

I somewhat agree, but let me try to put this better.

It should be noted that degrees of complexity are defined only by our limited perception. We only have a few senses, and our understanding even of ourselves has its limits. Most descriptions of God don't specify that we know he's more complex, only that his nature is beyond our limited perception. He could be incredibly simple, since there's a limit to how much we can simplify ideas as well. Thus he is not certain to be more complex.

As for the idea of the creator being more complex, it somewhat makes sense but only within our current realm of perception, in which God does not entirely exist (in the same way he doesn't obey the known laws of physics).

The flaw I see in Dawkins' determining our probability as a species is that we only have one biosphere (or universe) to pull from, which hardly makes for compelling statistical comparisons.

And besides, our understood system of statistical probability only applies to the observable universe within our realm of perception, and if something is defined as existing partially or completely outside of our realm of perception, then applying our statistical probability to is faulty.

In short: his argument that God is statistically improbable and therefore doesn't exist... is faulty.

...as far as I can see. I'm up for debate over this, I just don't feel like getting into the straight theist vs. atheist thing again.

Arguments made by, say, Christians on moral or ethical grounds are inherently based on their theology.

That is is is is over-generalization.

 

[Tyguy]

The majority of your post

STOP IT. You can't make any sensible arguments by claiming god is outside our limited perception. This is a lame scapegoat that cannot be refuted without theological interpretation, which is in itself equally extraneous.

 

[Mogi67]

I sincerely doubt most Christians base their entire moral compass on their theological teachings. If that were the case, I think we'd be far worse off. I think there are a lot of "CINOs" who identify themselves as being Christian but still do a bad job of practicing the faith.

But while I will discredit their theology, I will not discredit theists themselves. You should be able to find merit in secular arguments, independent of god belief. Whatever issues I may have with your theism, it's not going to be a problem unless you inject it into the discussion. For instance, we should both be able to agree that needless human suffering should be diminished without you having to quote the Bible in support of that claim.

If that's not possible, then yeah. Discredited!

If you're attacking Christian theology, then you're attacking a critical component of the Christian's worldview. I understand that you're not discrediting theists themselves as people, it's just that the religion cannot necessarily be so easily separable from the individual if they are genuinely religious. If I claim to be a Christian but much of my personal beliefs are in conflict with that, then I can't sincerely consider myself Christian.

I'm not saying that Christians can't have secular arguments for anything. If I were a Christian and I were arguing that human suffering should be diminished, then it would be in the context of my faith; this doesn't mean that I would get all evangelical and start spouting out bible verses, just that my worldview would be taken into account, by which I would say that all human beings have ontological dignity.

 

[lord_raken]

STOP IT. You can't make any sensible arguments by claiming god is outside our limited perception. This is a lame scapegoat that cannot be refuted without theological interpretation, which is in itself equally extraneous.

You are demanding empirical evidence for a entity that, by its very definition, transcend any sort of observable scientific data.

The argument for the existence of God inhabits an area of philosophy known as Metaphysics, which is not dependent on empirical evidence but on rational constructs. Plato and Socrates were fond of them.

Besides. The definition of God states that (he/she/it) exits outside of and above the laws of our universe. Therefore empirical evidence as we understand it does not apply to the debate over the existence of God.

The Dawkins argument would only apply if God was supposedly a being that originated within this universe and was subject to its rules.

You don't judge and artist buy his ability to do math.

 

[Absinthe]

If you're attacking Christian theology, then you're attacking a critical component of the Christian's worldview. I understand that you're not discrediting theists themselves as people, it's just that the religion cannot necessarily be so easily separable from the individual if they are genuinely religious. If I claim to be a Christian but much of my personal beliefs are in conflict with that, then I can't sincerely consider myself Christian.

I'm not saying that Christians can't have secular arguments for anything. If I were a Christian and I were arguing that human suffering should be diminished, then it would be in the context of my faith; this doesn't mean that I would get all evangelical and start spouting out bible verses, just that my worldview would be taken into account, by which I would say that all human beings have ontological dignity.

Your intent may be noble in the context of your faith, and I'm not disagreeing that there can be an overlap in religious and secular causes. But theological justifications are inherently without reason outside of the internal logic of the religion. They should be, at best, supplemental to serious reasoning. This is not for the sole purpose of shoving aside religion, but because validating one person's religious input validates everybody else's as well.

If somebody's hardcore, central, Christian belief is discounted as a result, then I'm afraid they're going to have to bite the bullet on it. It might suck if nobody takes you and your worldview seriously, but we can be only so agreeable up to a point.

You are demanding empirical evidence for a entity that, by its very definition, transcend any sort of observable scientific data.

And you're still justifying your belief in something you admit you have no way of comprehending in any humanly way possible.

Come on, who is looking silly here?

 

[Noodle]

STOP IT. You can't make any sensible arguments by claiming god is outside our limited perception. This is a lame scapegoat that cannot be refuted without theological interpretation, which is in itself equally extraneous.

By definition, it's true of God. At least it is in the way most modern
monotheistic religions see him.

I'm not trying to make an argument for theism, I'm simply pointing out some main flaws I see in Dawkins' argument:

1. He is assuming God exists within our universe's rules, however by definition God created those damn rules.

2. His assumptions about the probability of complex life and the probability of God seem somewhat baseless given the fact that we only have one biosphere (and universe) to base it on. There's no real statistical sample to judge that probability.

 

[Mogi67]

Your intent may be noble in the context of your faith, and I'm not disagreeing that there can be an overlap in religious and secular causes. But theological justifications are inherently without reason outside of the internal logic of the religion. They should be, at best, supplemental to serious reasoning. This is not for the sole purpose of shoving aside religion, but because validating one person's religious input validates everybody else's as well.

If somebody's hardcore, central, Christian belief is discounted as a result, then I'm afraid they're going to have to bite the bullet on it. It might suck if nobody takes you and your worldview seriously, but we can be only so agreeable up to a point.



And you're still justifying your belief in something you admit you have no way of comprehending in any humanly way possible.

Come on, who is looking silly here?

I suppose this is what happens with creationists. Ok, fair enough.

 

[Sparta]

By definition, it's true of God. At least it is in the way most modern monotheistic religions see him.

How can you proclaim that to be true when you have no evidence to suggest God exists or God doesn't? These definitions of God were simply made up by Man to explain away things we long ago had no understanding of.

This is a nonsense argument. This is literally something a kid would when playing cops and robbers.

"I shot you! You're dead!"
"Bullet-proof vest! I'm alive!"
"I shot you with my laser, you're dead!"
"Laser-shield! I'm alive!"

This is a ridiculous attempt to frame an argument in such a way as to nullify all reasonable logical and rational debate on the existence of God by saying science, logic and reason don't apply to God because I say it doesn't.

If God is transcendent and cannot be proved to exist or vis-versa, then how do we know God's transcendent in the first place? Because of holy scriptures written by men thousands of years ago? Because of definitions given to God by those very men? So the Bible is scientific now? Should I be stoning my brother to death for planting the wrong crops side by side as well?

You can't say the flaw is Dawkins argument is that the rules of science don't apply to God when those rules were made up by Man in the first place.

 

[Solaris]

I highly suspect Shift doesn't know what a theory is in a scientific context. None of Dawkins theories have anything to do with religion.

 

[ktimekiller]

As much as people try to put religious people in the lime light of being bitch shit crazy, I find "righteous" atheists just as bad, if not worse.

 

[Shift]

I highly suspect Shift doesn't know what a theory is in a scientific context. None of Dawkins theories have anything to do with religion.

And when did I say any of theories were to do with religion?

 

[RidleyRockets]

Ok well on the two that I mentioned earlier, firstly the creation/creator theory presented by Dawkins. He argued that a God who made the hugely complex universe must be even more complex than his creation. This is based on the true notion of whenever A makes B it is reasonable to assume that A (the creator) is greater than B (the creation) i.e. Beethoven was greater than any of his compositions, Turner or Picasso greater than their pictures.

What's unreasonable about this? The christian god for example is all seeing, all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe and all life within it. Can you demonstrate a way for him to be a simple creature? Saying that he's magic doesn't count.

Firstly, using Dawkins' reasoning, man couldn't have created God because if man fashions a transcendent and all-powerful God out his own imagination, the creation is greater than the creator

I can imagine any number of entities more complex than myself. The fact that you can imagine something has no influence at all on the likely hood of it existing.

so that either means we are incredibly improbable as a species but exist despite of that which debunks his probability theory further, or we simply did not create God.

Half vampire half werewolf Siamese twins are more complex and improbable than humans, we can imagine them so they exist right?

Secondly, the argument for the improbability of God as advanced by Dawkins and others boils down to 1) by common consent, the universe is a highly improbable and complex system; 2) if God created the universe he must be more complex than the universe he created; therefore 3) God is less probable than the universe and he himself is fantastically improbable so therefore can't exist.

However improbable the universe is i can still easily show you that it exists.

First of all we have to accept the assumption that the science of thermodynamics, developed to describe the behavior and matter of energy, applies to theology and God,

Unless you want to play the magic card.

hence the term 'improbable' thermodynamically speaking, refers to the number of different ways a system can be arranged or ordered. If this can apply to God, then you might just as well apply it love, music and politics also which just wouldn't work at all.

So you are saying that because you cannot apply thermodynamics to love etc, then you can't apply it to god? This is bizarre.

Love, politics and music don't violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. An all powerful infinite being would.

Secondly in laymen terms, God is arguably more complex and thus less probable than the physical universe, But by what logic must we accept that one highly improbable entity exists (the universe) while another highly improbable entity (God) does not exist - simply because he is too complex or organized to do so? The universe exists despite its incredible improbability which in itself, debunks his theory of God not existing because of his incredible improbability.

The universe isn't an entity.
We can easily demonstrate the universe exists.
One observable improbable thing existing has no influence over and is not proof of another unobservable improbable thing existing.

 

[Krynn72]

As much as people try to put religious people in the lime light of being bitch shit crazy, I find "righteous" atheists just as bad, if not worse.

Being batshit crazy and being annoying/confrontational are not even close to being equivalent.

 

[CptStern]

"this is a banana"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqWPDu06TSg

vs

"you're all a bunch of deluded crazies"


I'd take the frothing at the mouth atheist any day

 

[Shift]

What's unreasonable about this? The christian god for example is all seeing, all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe and all life within it. Can you demonstrate a way for him to be a simple creature? Saying that he's magic doesn't count.

I wasn't saying its unreasonable, I was setting up Dawkins' argument as to challenge it.

I can imagine any number of entities more complex than myself. The fact that you can imagine something has no influence at all on the likely hood of it existing.

I think you are missing the point, I am using a reasoning that Dawkins created, in other words that God is too improbable to have created the universe due to his higher complexion in comparison to his creation, so if God didn't exist then we created him from our imagination which, using Dawkins' idea, doesn't work either.

Half vampire half werewolf Siamese twins are more complex and improbable than humans, we can imagine them so they exist right?

See above.

However improbable the universe is i can still easily show you that it exists.

Well yes.. Are you attempting to defend Dawkins' argument here? You just seem to be finding more things wrong with them (which further strengthens my argument).

Unless you want to play the magic card.

What reference that comment has to mine is beyond me..

So you are saying that because you cannot apply thermodynamics to love etc, then you can't apply it to god? This is bizarre.

How is it bizarre? Thermodynamics is a tool to describe the behavior of matter and energy as stated before, love etc isn't something you can take to a test lab and run tests on to find the exact variables related to it, its not something you create accurate statistics on using the given the scientific method, you can't say someone is 30% in love, or 61% angry. And science in itself is a tool to describe the laws of the physical universe and God is paranormal or exists outside our laws of the universe so how can science possibly be used to prove/disprove him? Just like science can't possibly be used to find accurate readings on emotions like love.

Love, politics and music don't violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. An all powerful infinite being would.

Love, politics and music doesn't even apply to the laws of thermodynamics. God does violate the laws presented because he exists beyond them.

The universe isn't an entity.
We can easily demonstrate the universe exists.

Urm, contradiction? An entity is as the dictionary would describe it, something that exists, a being, existence or a thing. Saying it isn't an entity is basically saying it doesn't exist.

One observable improbable thing existing has no influence over and is not proof of another unobservable improbable thing existing.

You are missing the point of the argument. I was talking in terms of improbability presented by Dawkins. He is saying basically that God can't exist because of his huge improbability, but the universe is also hugely improbable and as you stated we can easily demonstrate the universe exists. Therefore his theory isn't valid in proving God doesn't exist.

 

[RidleyRockets]

I don't think you understand the arguments you think you were challenging, or how you were challenging them.

 

[Shift]

I don't think you understand the arguments you think you were challenging, or how you were challenging them.

Well in that case, enlighten me.

 

[RidleyRockets]

First of all Dawkins never says that god cannot exist and has never claimed to prove god doesn't exist. All he states is that the likely hood of god existing is fantastically tiny. Science doesn't deal in certainty but probability.

You state the argument from complexity in that the universe is too complex and improbable to have occurred by chance therefore a creator is needed. You then debunk this by saying that the designer is more complex and improbable than the universe. Nothing you wrote after that works as a counter argument and all the problems i pointed out you just claimed backed up your point.

Your argument was basically that since improbable things exist then something as vastly improbable as god can exist too, thus proving Dawkins wrong as he claimed god cannot exist even though has never made that claim.. This misquoting of dawkins is where i think your confusion comes from.

Also why bring up thermodynamics when you claim god is magic and outside of those laws?

There is some confusion over the word entity as it has different meanings. God can be described as entity in the sense that it is the essence of a being as well as an object, the universe is an entity in the sense that it is just an object. This isn't particularly important for the argument and is just a misunderstanding.

edit: Also earlier you mentioned that the burden of proof falling upon the claimant is a cop out, i mentioned Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy (although in picture form). For future reference here it is

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

 

[lord_raken]

How can you proclaim that to be true when you have no evidence to suggest God exists or God doesn't? These definitions of God were simply made up by Man to explain away things we long ago had no understanding of.

And how would you know that? By your own argument we cannot know one way or the other.

The premise of God is that he/she/it transcends the laws of our natural world. Therefore it follows that if God exists, then none of our methods of observation or science (which are entirely dependent on the laws of our natural world) are capable of observing God much less make sense of God.

So you say there is no empirical proof. I'll agree with you there, but, because of the very idea of God, the inability of empirical science to confirm or deny the existence of God is not evidence that God doesn't exist.

Here's a though. You'll never get rid of us. We will always be here. When this civilization crumbles and society is thrown into chaos religion will take the first steps back to a stable society. This is a common theme in history. When the material systems fail religions remains strong.... just a thought.

 

[RidleyRockets]

And how would you know that? By your own argument we cannot know one way or the other.

The premise of God is that he/she/it transcends the laws of our natural world. Therefore it follows that if God exists, then none of our methods of observation or science (which are entirely dependent on the laws of our natural world) are capable of observing God much less make sense of God.

Well that is the premise now. He used to be everywhere but when we looked closer it turned out he wasn't making lightning or causing earthquakes. Now he is conveniently placed outside the universe where no one can look. It's an argument that reeks of desperation.

So you say there is no empirical proof. I'll agree with you there, but, because of the very idea of God, the inability of empirical science to confirm or deny the existence of God is not evidence that God doesn't exist.

And the same goes for invisible pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster and magic dragons in the garage.

Here's a though. You'll never get rid of us. We will always be here. When this civilization crumbles and society is thrown into chaos religion will take the first steps back to a stable society. This is a common theme in history. When the material systems fail religions remains strong.... just a thought.

Can you back that up?

 

[Mogi67]

Well that is the premise now. He used to be everywhere but when we looked closer it turned out he wasn't making lightning or causing earthquakes. Now he is conveniently placed outside the universe where no one can look. It's an argument that reeks of desperation.


And the same goes for invisible pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster and magic dragons in the garage.


Can you back that up?

That's untrue. The Abrahamic God has always been described as transcendent. He is not conceptually defineable in time and space, the creator transcends even existence. God is not like pink unicorns, or magic dragons because he can't be conceptualized, only approached.

 

[RidleyRockets]

That's untrue. The Abrahamic God has always been described as transcendent. He is not conceptually defineable in time and space, the creator transcends even existence.

He used to dip his toes in our space and time all the time to do some smiting, drown the earth or maybe run around in human form for a bit until he saw a cross.

The more we learned about the world we live in and how it works the quieter old smitey seems to get.

I wasn't referring just to the Abrahamic god but gods in general. They've all lost places to hide.

God is not like pink unicorns, or magic dragons because he can't be conceptualized, only approached.

This is meaningless, i can say the same about the unicorn.

 

[Mogi67]

He used to dip his toes in our space and time all the time to do some smiting, drown the earth or maybe run around in human form for a bit until he saw a cross.

The more we learned about the world we live in and how it works the quieter old smitey seems to get.

I wasn't referring just to the Abrahamic god but gods in general. They've all lost places to hide.

This is meaningless, i can say the same about the unicorn.

Ok, but that doesn't change anything in regard to God's transcendence.

But you can't really say the same about unicorns. It's easy to imagine unicorns, think about what one would look like, what properties it may have. But with an infinite God, this isn't really possible with a finite mind.

 

[RidleyRockets]

Ok, but that doesn't change anything in regard to God's transcendence.

But you can't really say the same about unicorns. It's easy to imagine unicorns, think about what one would look like, what properties it may have. But with an infinite God, this isn't really possible with a finite mind.

Now the invisible unicorn is infinite, transcendent and although pink the level of pinkness cannot be conceived by the finite mind. What you're saying is useless.

Considering your god's properties cannot be described the bible is a pretty thick book. It says a lot about the nature of god, just off the top of my head i can tell you he hates fags, shellfish and people who work on his special day.

 

[Shift]

Also why bring up thermodynamics when you claim god is magic and outside of those laws?

Well the idea is that first of you can't use themodynamics to prove whether God exists or not, but Dawkins' did use it. I had to use his terminology as a way of counter arguing what he was saying if that makes sense.

Science doesn't deal in certainty but probability.

Well thats still besides the point.

First of all Dawkins never says that god cannot exist and has never claimed to prove god doesn't exist. All he states is that the likely hood of god existing is fantastically tiny.

You state the argument from complexity in that the universe is too complex and improbable to have occurred by chance therefore a creator is needed. You then debunk this by saying that the designer is more complex and improbable than the universe. Nothing you wrote after that works as a counter argument and all the problems i pointed out you just claimed backed up your point.

Your argument was basically that since improbable things exist then something as vastly improbable as god can exist too, thus proving Dawkins wrong as he claimed god cannot exist even though has never made that claim.. This misquoting of dawkins is where i think your confusion comes from.

Hmm well I would have to re-read his thoughts on this before I could come back with a valid counter argument, its been that long since I've looked through his writings.

 

[RidleyRockets]

Well the idea is that first of you can't use themodynamics to prove whether God exists or not, but Dawkins' did use it. I had to use his terminology as a way of counter arguing what he was saying if that makes sense.

He never said it disproved god!

Well thats still besides the point.

No, that's the entire point! Dawkins has never made a positive statement saying he or anyone else can or has disproved god. He only comments of the probability which is minuscule (hence Bertrand Russell's teapot, have you read anything i have posted?), nothing is provable to total captaincy outside of mathematical proofs.

Hmm well I would have to re-read his thoughts on this before I could come back with a valid counter argument, its been that long since I've looked through his writings.

So you claimed his reasoning had been destroyed without being familiar with his reasoning in the first place?

 

[Shift]

So you claimed his reasoning had been destroyed without being familiar with his reasoning in the first place?

No, just being familiar with his reasoning as how I remembered it, but to be honest the workings of many writers can be interpreted in various ways. I shall re-read anyway.

 

[Tyguy]

The premise of God is that he/she/it transcends the laws of our natural world. Therefore it follows that if God exists, then none of our methods of observation or science (which are entirely dependent on the laws of our natural world) are capable of observing God much less make sense of God.

This is typically the last argument you hear from the religious, and for good reason.

So you say there is no empirical proof. I'll agree with you there, but, because of the very idea of God, the inability of empirical science to confirm or deny the existence of God is not evidence that God doesn't exist.

Agreed. Isn't science nice to allow for such conclusions?

Here's a though. You'll never get rid of us. We will always be here.

So will the mental hospitals

 

[Polaris]

Well the idea is that first of you can't use themodynamics to prove whether God exists or not, but Dawkins' did use it. I had to use his terminology as a way of counter arguing what he was saying if that makes sense.

Quote source, please. I have a trouble to find it in any of his books.

 

[RidleyRockets]

This is typically the last argument you hear from the religious, and for good reason.

It's hilarious. Not only has god now been pushed to a place no one can ever look but even if you did manage to corner him he's also indescribable!

 

[Mogi67]

Now the invisible unicorn is infinite, transcendent and although pink the level of pinkness cannot be conceived by the finite mind. What you're saying is useless.

Considering your god's properties cannot be described the bible is a pretty thick book. It says a lot about the nature of god, just off the top of my head i can tell you he hates fags, shellfish and people who work on his special day.

No, it isn't useless. The analogy doesn't quite work. You're still attributing properties to the unicorn.

According to Christianity, outside of scripture and revelation, God in His essence is beyond the limits of what human beings can understand. Statements such as those you listed, though they are incorrect, reveal not God's nature but things around God's natures. God then is absolute alterity, is everything that can never be communicated or portrayed. Emmanuel Levinas said that "participation in his sacred life, an allegedly direct comprehension, is impossible" , and therefore atheism is a preferred outlook, the only way to encounter God, since theists generally tend to want to contain God in their own presuppositions.

 

[RidleyRockets]

No, it isn't useless. The analogy doesn't quite work. You're still attributing properties to the unicorn.

According to Christianity, outside of scripture and revelation, God in His essence is beyond the limits of what human beings can understand. Statements such as those you listed, though they are incorrect, reveal not God's nature but things around God's natures. God then is absolute alterity, is everything that can never be communicated or portrayed. Emmanuel Levinas said that "participation in his sacred life, an allegedly direct comprehension, is impossible" , and therefore atheism is a preferred outlook, the only way to encounter God, since theists generally tend to want to contain God in their own presuppositions.

According to Unicornianity, outside of scripture and revelation, The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IVP) in His essence and pinkness is beyond the limits of what human beings can understand. Statements such as those you listed, though they are incorrect, reveal not the IVP's nature but things around IVP's natures. The IVP then is absolute alterity, is everything that can never be communicated or portrayed. Pippy Slabcock said that "participation in his single horned sacred life, an allegedly direct comprehension, is impossible" , and therefore anicornism is a preferred outlook, the only way to encounter the IVP, since theists generally tend to want to contain his holy pinkness in their own presuppositions.

What do you make of the invisible pink unicorn now? How is he any less valid than your god?

Also where did you get this information about god and how do you determine it to be true?

 

[Tyguy]

According to Christianity, outside of scripture and revelation, God in His essence is beyond the limits of what human beings can understand.

A tenant of the "you can't disprove it" notion. This is religion's dying attempt to refute anything it can.

 

[lord_raken]

A tenant of the "you can't disprove it" notion. This is religion's dying attempt to refute anything it can.

You don't seem to have grasped the difference between the scientific and religious paradigms.

You cannot apply scientific empiricism to what is, and always has been, a metaphysical ideology that exists as a construct of philosophical reasoning.

Science uncovers the mechanics of our universe in all its complexity. Religion explores the 'why' of our existence and seeks answers science cannot provide. Science cannot explain love. It can explain the reactions and activity in out brain associated with love but it can't explain beauty of love. Religion explains the beauty of love and why we are here. Science can't answer that.

 

[Acepilotf14]

That is called philosophy, my dear raken.

 

[Absinthe]

Here's a though. You'll never get rid of us. We will always be here. When this civilization crumbles and society is thrown into chaos religion will take the first steps back to a stable society. This is a common theme in history. When the material systems fail religions remains strong.... just a thought.

That's great, and now you can tell me how that makes you any less of a loon.

Religion explores the 'why' of our existence and seeks answers science cannot provide.

How is religion even qualified to do such a thing.

What a fucking idiot you must be if you think anybody needs God or religion to explain a concept like love. In fact, love can be explained by science. We've had a pretty good understanding of hormones and the social framework for mate selection.

 

[99.vikram]

Here's a though. You'll never get rid of us. We will always be here. When this civilization crumbles and society is thrown into chaos religion will take the first steps back to a stable society. This is a common theme in history. When the material systems fail religions remains strong.... just a thought.

It take some cognitive blindness to state something like this. Religion has steadily, consistently been losing it's domain of influence in society. From the pagan days to the advent of the Greeks to the enlightenment to modern society powered by silicon and petrofuels, as science has empowered us, religion has receded into the shadows. It is only a matter of time (and human effort) until there's nothing left for God but the inside of the religious mind.

And at that point religion will finally have lost it's capacity to incite people to murder.

Moreover, all the 'why' questions are entirely subjective, and religion's presumption in trying to impose an answer is why I dislike it.