The Case for God

[Randall R. Young]

I don't quite understand the purpose of a theology related to the apophatic view which considers God a mystery beyond the ability of any human language to comprehend. If God is an unknowable entity which cannot even be presumed to exist, what exactly are we talking about? Instead of calling it "God," why not call it x, an algebraic notation that stands for the unknown? I guess I'm always suspicious of the notion of "God" even when it's used for allegorical purpose.

A silly suggestion; right?
X, a variable in an algebraic expression is a totally inappropriate represenation of God who is NOT variable.

God is not variable? Pardon me for saying this, but how can this be maintained against all the multiple conceptions of God and gods throughout history? Why, even in the case of the Christian Bible, God has quite a different set of attributes in the NT than He sports in the old. Why shouldn't those count as variables? I mean, if x = attributes{a1,a2,a3, ..., a[n]}, and later, x = attributes{a5,a6,a7, ..., a[m]} then x has varied--unless every single attribute in the brackets is equivalent. Can you give any reason to suppose this is so?

Also, there is quite a bit of slosh associated with the various conceptions of god(s). Is it your contention that God is well defined, but that we simply aren't privy to that definition? If so, how would you (or anybody else) know this? As it is, as far as anyone can say, there simply is no demonstrable definition of the word or name "God" that you can get consensus upon that even has pretensions of being complete or adequate. If that doesn't make it a "variable", then I don't know what would.

Further, x is only unknown in a sense. When additional information becomes available, the value of x is quickly revealed and in the set of data provided x has a clearly defined set of values which do not vary. God is most certainly not unknowable, only beyond our comprehension.

But what if the presumed "information" is never going to become available? Doesn't x remain variable forever, in that case? It seems to me that the theistic view is that there are aspects of God that will never be known, and could very well be in flux. Whose to know otherwise? Claims of the constancy of God are therefore quite impossible to substantiate.

[hesse]

What is the ideal purpose of human life?

at-one-ment.... which of course has been co-opted to atonement by the very persons Robert has identified above...

[stahrwe]

God is not variable? Pardon me for saying this, but how can this be maintained against all the multiple conceptions of God and gods throughout history? Why, even in the case of the Christian Bible, God has quite a different set of attributes in the NT than He sports in the old. Why shouldn't those count as variables? I mean, if x = attributes{a1,a2,a3, ..., a[n]}, and later, x = attributes{a5,a6,a7, ..., a[m]} then x has varied--unless every single attribute in the brackets is equivalent. Can you give any reason to suppose this is so?

Also, there is quite a bit of slosh associated with the various conceptions of god(s). Is it your contention that God is well defined, but that we simply aren't privy to that definition? If so, how would you (or anybody else) know this? As it is, as far as anyone can say, there simply is no demonstrable definition of the word or name "God" that you can get consensus upon that even has pretensions of being complete or adequate. If that doesn't make it a "variable", then I don't know what would.

You have fallen victim to Atheist Urban Legends. Your position is fairly common among atheists and is promulgated by people like Robert Wright in books like, The Evolution of God and facilitated by a lack of knowldedge of the Bible and interst to independently confirm the statements. You may be interested in the facts and I would be happy to engage you with them.

Further, x is only unknown in a sense. When additional information becomes available, the value of x is quickly revealed and in the set of data provided x has a clearly defined set of values which do not vary. God is most certainly not unknowable, only beyond our comprehension.

But what if the presumed "information" is never going to become available? Doesn't x remain variable forever, in that case? It seems to me that the theistic view is that there are aspects of God that will never be known, and could very well be in flux. Whose to know otherwise? Claims of the constancy of God are therefore quite impossible to substantiate.

Negative, if you can devise an equation specifying a variable you have established the relationship between the variable(s) and constants. In order to write an equation you must be able to find values for the variables otherwise the equation could not have been established.

On the other hand, just because there are aspects of God which we can't comprehend now proves no more than the fact that a 3 year old does not understand everything about its parent means that parent doesn't exist.

[Robert Tulip]

What is the ideal purpose of human life?

at-one-ment.... which of course has been co-opted to atonement by the very persons Robert has identified above...

Hi Hesse, welcome to Booktalk. Thank you for your comment. Atonement refers to a natural sense of unity with the cosmos. Being at one through attunement to nature is the original meaning of atonement. The perspective of unity has an ethical dimension in showing that much human life is grounded in falsity. The source of guilt is not being at one with reality. An especially big source of guilt is the religious delusion that atonement through a specific traditional interpretation of Christ will save our souls. It gets back to the fact that religious language points to a deeper reality of the unity of all things, but religious ideas have been co-opted by a shallow and superficial political theology in conventional orthodoxy.

[stahrwe]

What is the ideal purpose of human life?

at-one-ment.... which of course has been co-opted to atonement by the very persons Robert has identified above...

Question. 1. What is the chief end of man?

Answer. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

[Robert Tulip]

I don't quite understand the purpose of a theology related to the apophatic view which considers God a mystery beyond the ability of any human language to comprehend. If God is an unknowable entity which cannot even be presumed to exist, what exactly are we talking about? Instead of calling it "God," why not call it x, an algebraic notation that stands for the unknown? I guess I'm always suspicious of the notion of "God" even when it's used for allegorical purpose.

A silly suggestion; right?
X, a variable in an algebraic expression is a totally inappropriate represenation of God who is NOT variable.

God is not variable? Pardon me for saying this, but how can this be maintained against all the multiple conceptions of God and gods throughout history? Why, even in the case of the Christian Bible, God has quite a different set of attributes in the NT than He sports in the old. Why shouldn't those count as variables? I mean, if x = attributes{a1,a2,a3, ..., a[n]}, and later, x = attributes{a5,a6,a7, ..., a[m]} then x has varied--unless every single attribute in the brackets is equivalent. Can you give any reason to suppose this is so?

Also, there is quite a bit of slosh associated with the various conceptions of god(s). Is it your contention that God is well defined, but that we simply aren't privy to that definition? If so, how would you (or anybody else) know this? As it is, as far as anyone can say, there simply is no demonstrable definition of the word or name "God" that you can get consensus upon that even has pretensions of being complete or adequate. If that doesn't make it a "variable", then I don't know what would.

Further, x is only unknown in a sense. When additional information becomes available, the value of x is quickly revealed and in the set of data provided x has a clearly defined set of values which do not vary. God is most certainly not unknowable, only beyond our comprehension.

But what if the presumed "information" is never going to become available? Doesn't x remain variable forever, in that case? It seems to me that the theistic view is that there are aspects of God that will never be known, and could very well be in flux. Whose to know otherwise? Claims of the constancy of God are therefore quite impossible to substantiate.

Hi Randall, welcome to Booktalk. Thanks for posting in this thread. I initially thought oh no when you engaged with Stahrwe, as he does have some specific agendas here. But the content of your comments is very interesting. If we define God as reality, then obviously this is a problem, given that we have no consensus on the meaning of reality. But that does not mean that there is not one reality. Of course there is. The apocalyptic view of Christianity is that God will become known as reality. At that time all misconceptions will be exposed. My opinion is that conventional faith is misconceived, and will be jolted into recognition of its errors by events. Further, I think this interpretation is compatible with both science and the Bible, but not with the desires of Christians, who have put their own instinctive wishes before an effort to find the truth.

I've just finished reading Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt by RT Rundle Clark. He makes the excellent point that the Egyptians viewed their gods as forces of nature, not as entities. This seems very helpful to me as a way to see the errors of Christian doctrine.

[stahrwe]

Hi Randall, welcome to Booktalk. Thanks for posting in this thread. I initially thought oh no when you engaged with Stahrwe, as he does have some specific agendas here.

I suggest the same for you and your fellow TBK associates of Tat Tvam Asi, Vishnu, Azael or Star Burst or whatever he is calling himsel now. My agenda is to point out misconceptions and misrepresentations of the Bible and Chistianity.

[Azrael]

Hi Randall, welcome to Booktalk. Thanks for posting in this thread. I initially thought oh no when you engaged with Stahrwe, as he does have some specific agendas here.

I suggest the same for you and your fellow TBK associates of Tat Tvam Asi, Vishnu, Azael or Star Burst or whatever he is calling himsel now. My agenda is to point out misconceptions and misrepresentations of the Bible and Chistianity.

Azrael you fundie jerk.

[stahrwe]

Hi Randall, welcome to Booktalk. Thanks for posting in this thread. I initially thought oh no when you engaged with Stahrwe, as he does have some specific agendas here.

I suggest the same for you and your fellow TBK associates of Tat Tvam Asi, Vishnu, Azael or Star Burst or whatever he is calling himsel now. My agenda is to point out misconceptions and misrepresentations of the Bible and Chistianity.

Azrael you fundie jerk.

Really, I don't think so. Some people have inflated opinions of themselves.

[Randall R. Young]

But that does not mean that there is not one reality. Of course there is.

???

How can you support this assumption without knowing what that "one reality" might be? Why can't the "Many Worlds" view be reality? There is certainly no good way to sweep this possibility under the rug, what with Path Integrals being so perfectly predictive, and the various probabilistic approaches to quantum reality. Your assumption simply doesn't have observational support, or any reason that I can see to accept it--aside from wishful thinking. And certainly, until you can pin down what that reality might be, the possibility clearly exists that you don't know how ill-defined it might be, at base.

We already have a reality that has been pinned down to a great extent by quantum principles, and all the pointers point to its inherent wishy-washiness. This theory works so well that I see no advantage to assuming it is faulty, until better calculations can be made with a classical approach such as you seem to be assuming must exist. Maybe so, but not in this universe.

(Where I live, Planck's constant is measurable, and it doesn't equal zero.)