Do you believe in a supernatural creator, God or gods of any sort?

[Interbane]

In essence, it rests upon the concept that God is infinite (or at least so close to that as to be indiscernible), and also the creator of all things.

The universe is infinite, or close enough, and we've done a fairly good job of understanding a portion of it. Full knowledge is different, as you point out.


I was quoting multiple people in my last post, and forgot to insert the names, I apologize.

[ant]

In essence, it rests upon the concept that God is infinite (or at least so close to that as to be indiscernible), and also the creator of all things.

In contrast, man is decidedly finite and limited.

To postulate that a finite creature would be able to fully comprehend infinity, much less an infinite being would be impossible almost by definition.

Very nicely said. By definition, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

[Chris OConnor]

How convenient.

You fail to prove your God even exists and then you conveniently define your God in such a way as to be incomprehensible. Very "clever." So we are to believe your God exists but we cannot attempt to comprehend the nature of his existence. Excuse me while I go bang my head into the wall.

[Olivia22]

No human logic or reasoning could understand God if God is truly the creator of all things.

I hear this often. What reasoning do you have to support this? Why is it not possible that if there is an omniscient being, he is mostly understandable? We could understand various aspects, yet still remain short of full comprehension as those aspects are infinite. We can understand the universe, even if we cannot have all of it in our minds at once. This claim appears non-sequitur.

I think the idea that a god would be unknowable is an unsupported excuse. I mean, it may be true, but nowhere is there good supportive reasoning for this claim. It's just thrown out there. Because it serves as an excellent means. The end that it supports is to keep the goal post of "god" out of reach. We cannot define nor know any part of god. This creates an extremely powerful immunization against future contrary reasoning. It is a defense mechanism for theism. In the pool of differentially selected ideas, a defense mechanism will survive to be included in your arsenal even if you aren't aware of what it is. Even if you have no good reason for it to be true.

It actually isn't my comment but Olivia22's. I understand it and echoed it though, so will give you my own personal understanding of the issue.

In essence, it rests upon the concept that God is infinite (or at least so close to that as to be indiscernible), and also the creator of all things.

In contrast, man is decidedly finite and limited.

To postulate that a finite creature would be able to fully comprehend infinity, much less an infinite being would be impossible almost by definition. As Olivia22 puts it, "I think that if this creator is real than s/he would be such a complex being that no mere human could possibly understand s/he's motives."

Note that neither of us is saying "unknowable" though. Olivia is talking about a creator's motivations, while I would assert that we simply could not know the fullness of God (what you term "full comprehension"). In essence I would agree with your comment on being able to 'know' God, but not know him fully.

You've also got bits of my, Ant's and possibly Olivia's post in this. Was that intentional or have you mixed up who was speaking?

Thank you Doulos. You explained exactly what I meant better than I would have done. I didn't mean that a creator would be "unknowable". I was simply saying that we wouldn't be able to completely understand this creator. Of course, if there is a creator there would be parts of s/he that we could know and understand but I think there would be much more that we couldn't comprehend.

I keep using the word creator because to say "God" would limit it to the Christian or Jewish idea of God and I don't want to limit it to that. I don't like the idea of limiting it to one or two schools of belief when there are thousands, possibly millions of belief systems that are just as valid.

[ant]

So we are to believe your God exists but we cannot attempt to comprehend the nature of his existence.

Actually, I personally do not care what you choose to believe simply because it would truly be a waste of time. You can certainly attempt to understand anything you'd like. Some things you will understand, and others you simply won't because you are a LIMITED creature (aren't we all, for that matter).
It's hubris to believe you are going to understand everything you attempt to grasp intellectually.

What I do think however is that atheists such as yourself are quite uncomfortable with the idea of religion because of the ways man twists it into ideology. That I can not blame you for.

If you are certain there is no God then the burden of proof shifts to your lap whether you like it or not. It's only fair since you are asking for evidence from those that believe.

So because I'm willing to wager you will not be able to produce said evidence, I actually wont be banging my head against anything because I'd win. However, you are free to bang your head while you attempt to disprove the existence of something beyond your ken.

[Chris OConnor]

If you are certain there is no God then the burden of proof shifts to your lap whether you like it or not.

I'm not arguing that there is no God. I am arguing that your belief in a God is silly and irrational due to the fact there isn't any evidence for the existence of a God. Believing in anything without evidence is silly and irrational.

I'm not arguing that there are not invisible gnomes living on a yet undiscovered planet in a distant galaxy. I would argue that belief in invisible gnomes living on a yet undiscovered planet in a distant galaxy is silly and irrational due to the fact there isn't any supporting evidence.

Do I now have to drag you around the entire cosmos and prove to you that there are indeed no invisible gnomes out there? Wouldn't it be rational to reject the invisible gnome claim even without being able to prove that invisible gnomes don't exist?

[ant]

'Im not arguing that there is no God. I am arguing that your belief in a God is silly and irrational due to the fact there isn't any evidence for the existence of a God. Believing in anything without evidence is silly and irrational.

I think it's silly and irrational for you to believe you're going to get, or are entitled to, evidence for everything in life.
That's simply a disconnect by you or anyone else that believes evidence is some sort of entitlement or Note of Demand you get the minute you're born into your small bubble of existence.

It's impossible for you to traverse the entire cosmos, therefore there are some things that will remain beyond your facial needs for evidence. I get it.., you're a hardcore materialist that needs it placed on a plate for examination. If it's not, then your materialist universe is still ordered as you see it.

The numerous string dimensions that some cosmologists are now subscribing to as likely to exist are beyond evidence. Why don't you demand evidence from them?

[ant]

I'm not arguing that there is no God.

BTW,

It sure seems that you are from the tone of your comments.
But of course you won't because you'd have something heavy on your back to lug around - meaning, the demand for evidence based on the claim you are making.

Your hypothesis is that there LIKELY is no god because we don't have any evidence FOR a god.
But evidence is hard to come by, if not impossible at times. So, you're working with what you got. Fine and dandy.
You're working with a limited tool box does not autoMAGICALLY rule out something your toolbox can't tackle.

[Robert Tulip]

The famous theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer had a good definition of God as "the beyond in the midst of the world". This is a definition that can be compatible with scientific knowledge. What it means, in my view, is that the universe has a common evolving path, which we can term the beyond, and which is understood in scientific laws such as those of physics and evolution. Our planet is part of the universe, and we have a choice whether to live by its laws or construct our own fantasy. Attuning to God is a metaphor for living in the ways that accord with the long term reality of the universe, and that will help our planetary life to prosper for ever.

Speaking of an infinite entity who has a conscious purpose is ridiculous. There is no evidence for the existence of such an entity, and the principle of economy of reason (Ockham's Razor) suggests that imagining such a real God is delusional. Such speculation about God as an entity is better explained by psychological projection than by inspiration from something real.

And yet, the common purpose of the universe described by scientific law can usefully be described with the metaphor of the mind of God. If we see this universal mind reflected in our solar system and our planet, the question becomes how humans should live in order to understand reality, bringing the beyond into the midst of the world.

Understanding God therefore becomes a metaphor for understanding reality - as Jesus put it, the truth will set you free. Unfortunately, religion is so corrupt and ignorant that it has become a byword for denial of reality, and shows little interest in sensible dialogue. No wonder the world is headed for catastrophic conflict.

[Chris OConnor]

Your hypothesis is that there LIKELY is no god because we don't have any evidence FOR a god.
But evidence is hard to come by, if not impossible at times. So, you're working with what you got. Fine and dandy.
You're working with a limited tool box does not autoMAGICALLY rule out something your toolbox can't tackle.

I agree with everything you've said.

But what I've said is also true. There is no sound reason to believe in a God. I don't have to KNOW things don't exist to not believe in them.