Originally posted by orfeoPessimist. Why shouldn't our limited knowledge of physics eventually comprehend the "supernatural"?
We are talking - assuming God exists - about a supernatural being and a spiritual plane. Requiring a definition of God that is confined to the world of physics seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, by definition I think it would cease to be labelled as supernatural.
Pessimist. Why shouldn't our limited knowledge of physics eventually comprehend the "supernatural"?
You might disagree, but I think all that's happening is we're finding different forms of asking 'does God exist'. Howardgee wants to assert that God doesn't exist. I suspect the rest of us will never come up with a definition that satisfies him, because at some point it will involve the idea that God is beyond physical measurement. Otherwise, God will (eventually) be reduced to a natural phenomenon - whether that be a bunch of chemical reactions in the brain or some creature from another planet that we haven't cottoned onto. Either way, it doesn't seem to me that a God that is wholly part of the natural world is capable of meeting all of the characteristics normally attributed to God by monotheist religions.
There's another point I want to make here about our 'limited knowledge'. [This is not about you personally, Bosse]
One of the most frustrating conceits of modern atheists is to say, explictily or implicitly, that ancient peoples simply made up gods to explain anything they didn't understand or have another explanation for.
I think that's rubbish. It presupposes the ancients were all idiots with no tendency to have inquiring minds. How did science ever even start if there weren't people who wondered why things worked the way they did, rather than simply declaring everything to be a mystery of the gods?
I'm a reasonably bright person, and there are plenty of things I don't immediately understand. I don't go running to God every time. And while I might have a larger knowledge base to draw upon than people did a few thousand years ago, I fail see to why my innate intelligence should be any different in nature to the intelligence available to people back then.
There are many, many theists in the history of science who wouldn't have got anywhere had they just said "if it's beyond my current knowledge, it's unknowable". But those same people believed in a supernatural realm that their science couldn't measure.
It's not a limited knowledge of physics that prevents us from understanding God. It's a refusal to consider that some things might transcend physics by their very essence.
Originally posted by orfeoWhich is why when God was speaking to Moses and Moses asked
Well, by definition I think it would cease to be labelled as supernatural.
You might disagree, but I think all that's happening is we're finding different forms of asking 'does God exist'. Howardgee wants to assert that God doesn't exist. I suspect the rest of us will never come up with a definition that satisfies him, because at some point it will involv ...[text shortened]... of meeting all of the characteristics normally attributed to God by monotheist religions.
God, who shall I say sent me, God said, I AM. To voice descriptions
about God limits Him, we can talk about what God does when it comes
to our lives, but God is beyond the human ability to grasp when it
comes to His person. God is love, God is a spirit, but as Howardgee
already pointed out, those are poor descriptions of God, and do not
really get the point across about God himself. Our views about love
and spirit may not be good enough to understand how that describes
God.
Kelly
Originally posted by thesonofsaul"Ultimate" either is an adjective or requires a direct object as far as I understand it. Am I wrong?
I don't worship, more's the pity, but I will try to describe my concept of God. I only have words to work with here, so please excuse me when I find it impossible to get it right.
God is the image of the ultimate, the image of perfection. God is home to the idea that even when you are capable of doing anything, you still only do what is right (not ...[text shortened]... its own importence. Once you hear, then you won't be asking for such definitions anymore.
"Perfection" refers to "perfect" which is a subjective concept.
What do you mean by "what is right" - especially if you mean not exclusively in a moral sense?
How can one have faith in something when you don't have faith in anything?
Force is a term in physics.
What does "holy" mean?
Your post sounds profound but makes no sense.
Originally posted by KellyJayDoes it limit God to say he is not Satan?
Which is why when God was speaking to Moses and Moses asked
God, who shall I say sent me, God said, I AM. To voice descriptions
about God limits Him, we can talk about what God does when it comes
to our lives, but God is beyond the human ability to grasp when it
comes to His person. God is love, God is a spirit, but as Howardgee
already pointed out, th ...[text shortened]... iews about love
and spirit may not be good enough to understand how that describes
God.
Kelly
Originally posted by orfeo"Transcend physics by their very essence"? What does that mean?
There's another point I want to make here about our 'limited knowledge'. [This is not about you personally, Bosse]
One of the most frustrating conceits of modern atheists is to say, explictily or implicitly, that ancient peoples simply made up gods to explain anything they didn't understand or have another explanation for.
I think that's rubbish. It pre ...[text shortened]... sal to consider that some things might transcend physics by their very essence.
Originally posted by howardgeeGOD= A self human creation to fufil a purpose and need that is slowly dieing out
That's all I ask.
If I believed in the Flying Spaghetti monster, then in order for you to dispute my claim, I would have to define what I thought it was.
Please be as specific as you can; try and avoid vagueness.
So come on all ye faithful - describe for me what it is you worship.
Originally posted by orfeo"One of the most frustrating conceits of modern atheists is to say, explictily or implicitly, that ancient peoples simply made up gods to explain anything they didn't understand or have another explanation for. "
There's another point I want to make here about our 'limited knowledge'. [This is not about you personally, Bosse]
One of the most frustrating conceits of modern atheists is to say, explictily or implicitly, that ancient peoples simply made up gods to explain anything they didn't understand or have another explanation for.
I think that's rubbish. It pre ...[text shortened]... sal to consider that some things might transcend physics by their very essence.
This explanation though is entirely accurate.
Tell me orfeo - what do you think lightning is?
"Ultimate" either is an adjective or requires a direct object as far as I understand it. Am I wrong?
Got me on that one. I am guilty of useing lyrical licence. String me up.
"Perfection" refers to "perfect" which is a subjective concept.
Not a subjective concept, but a concept that is unreachable from the human perspective, a concept that the unenlightened might even say does not exist, for there is always some sort of flaw in everything human. Someone will always point out that something is amiss, and that person can certainly not be called wrong. Your response to my post is a case in point. However, this is all the more reason to equate perfection to God (or is it the other way around?) Perfection is an idea that is unreachable by humans; God is a being equally unreachable. As long as you continually look for flaws, you will only be looking at humanity.
What do you mean by "what is right" - especially if you mean not exclusively in a moral sense?
I would think that this one is obvious, but as you are bent on finding flaws by pointing our your own lack of understanding, I'll help you out. What is right is specifically what is not wrong. My condition that I tacked on was meant to eliminate the idea that what is right is what is morally right, and morals, although meant in the right spirit, seem to only complicate and blind.
How can one have faith in something when you don't have faith in anything?
This is a sequential thing. You find that you don't have faith in anything, and then find that there is something to have faith in.
Force is a term in physics
I'm not going to post the entire definition for the word "force" here, and you have to learn to pick up a dictionary sooner or later. Try to make it sooner so your ignorance doesn't show so much. It embarasses both of us.
What does "holy" mean?
Exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness. The dictionary thing again.
Your post sounds profound but makes no sense.
From you I take this as a compliment. Thank you.
According to our anthropomorphism of what we think god SHOULD be like, it would appear to me this god would be something of a 5 dimensional statue. That is to say, if god exists in all time and space and beyond and by beyond I think it safe to assume extra dimesions, then such a being would have a fixed but maybe fluid structure so that it would be difficult for such a being to experience the flow of time and space in the same way we would, since we are ephemeral, and have a certain duration. So such a being would know everything about our entire existance and more in a way analogous to a movie editor knowing his film, frame by frame. So the concept of knowing frames would not allow this being to actually participate in our realm except through sub sections of itself where god could be likened to a cd which has all the information of everything across time and space but it needs a laser and electronics to actually experience duration.
Giving it such aspects as 'man made in gods image' does not work, since in an infinite being there would be no inside or outside to cover with skin in the first place, likewise no genatalia since it doesn't need continuity, it already has everything that is encoded in itself. So there is no need to address such a being as 'her' or He, father or mother figures are useless appendages, helping only humans in some vain attempt to anthropomorphise it. So I have basically said what god is not but what it is would by definition have to include all that is in our 4 dimensions but like I said I think it would be a fixed being, unable to evolve any further unless you evolve amoeba like into yet more dimensions.