Who is fool'in who?

Originally posted by Nordlys
Are you a pantheist?

Well, a panthiest is defined as a doctrine identifying the Diety with the various forces and working of nature. I believe there is a God and that God created the various forces and workings in nature and is in control of them. So if this makes me a panthiest, so be it.

Originally posted by whodey
Both the athesit and the theist can provide peices of evidence to back their respective positions. The theist, however, recognizes through humility that he is incapable of knowing all the evidence and equally incapable of proving it using that evidence. The atheist, however, through his finite intellect believes he can grasp the infinite totality of reality and thereby debunking the possiblity of God.

It is not neccessary to grasp the infinite totality of reality in order to know how things work. For example if we ever find a universal formula for physics which shows that to all intents and purposes the observable universe stays within the rules of the formula (Theory of Everything) then we can claim to understand the universe without actually grasping the infinite totality of reality. We can measure the velocity of an object and predict its path acurately without knowing the position and details of every constituent atom.
Faith is believing in the improbable. Believing that an elephant is not sitting on your house is not faith that is common sense. Believing that an elephant is sitting on your house is faith as it goes against probability. Common sense differs from person to person as thier understanding of the probabilities involved differs.
Most scientists who accept scientific laws and theorys do not do so on faith. If the probability of the theory being correct changes significantly thier acceptance of the theory will also change. This differs from most religions where there is no real indication as to the validity of the religion and even when faced with clear undeniable evidence to the contrary people will cling to thier faith. You decide to accept something as fact even when you know that your decision is not based on sound reasoning or evidence.

The theist, however, recognizes through humility that he is incapable of knowing all the evidence and equally incapable of proving it using that evidence.
We all know this is not the case. The theist almost always believes that he is not only capable of knowing the unknowable, but that he is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Where is the humility there?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not neccessary to grasp the infinite totality of reality in order to know how things work. For example if we ever find a universal formula for physics which shows that to all intents and purposes the observable universe stays within the rules of the formula (Theory of Everything) then we can claim to understand the universe without actually grasping ...[text shortened]... unknowable, but that he is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Where is the humility there?

You say that we will grasp the infinite as soon as we come up with the formula for everything to do so? Why don't we first come up with the formula to help back our assumptions that we are capable of coming up with that formula or that it even exists verses assuming we can do so and then further assuming it will inable us to grasp the infinite. Tell me this, if we do come up with the theory of everything, will you then be able to tell me how to create the smallest living organism which is a living cell? I realize we have evidence and knowledge of the totality of reality such as measuring the velocity of objects and such, however, this is childs play in comparison telling me how to create a living cell. You only have bits and peices of the totality of reality, not the full picture.

You can define faith as believing the impossible if you like. For me, if you have faith is believeing something that you cannot prove 100%. If you place your faith in something due to the fact it is probable, you are placing your faith in the probablity that it will happen. It all boils down to what you place your faith in. Placing your faith in a higher being affords you the oppurtunity to place your faith in the improbable, however. You can also place your faith in that higher being for the probable such as recovering from a cold ect. However, I think we can both agree that the improbable happens from time to time and if it happens the atheist will be caught off gaurd. The atheist, however, cannot place his faith in the improbable, but will always place his faith in the probable or the perceived probability that it will happen. The theist, on the other hand, is free to study the laws of probablity and put them to use, but also embrace the improbable with the possibility of overcoming the odds via faith. This position is more in line with embracing the totality of reality.

Originally posted by whodey
There would be no entry point into space and time?

This is all pure speculation. Again, as I said before, we have no point of reference to relate to such a deminsion. As a result, it is futile to speculate about such a deminsion. For me, this is where the totality of reality is beyond human comprehension and therefore requires faith. Your position ca ...[text shortened]... ever, the atheist seems to think it can all be comprehended and belief never enters the picture.

Existing in another dimension would not be the same thing as existing in a "spiritual" realm, though, would it?

Making sense of another dimension is less problematic than making sense of a non-physical realm.

But when you say, "It is futile to speculate about such a dimension. This is where the totality of reality is beyond human comprehension", you get close to the kind of atheism I was talking about. Call it "Nothing-about-this-God-thing-really-makes-sense atheism". Non-physical realm; omnipotence; omnipresence in the physical universe. They seem to make sense, and yet...

Originally posted by dottewell
Existing in another dimension would not be the same thing as existing in a "spiritual" realm, though, would it?

Making sense of another dimension is less problematic than making sense of a non-physical realm.

But when you say, "It is futile to speculate about such a dimension. This is where the totality of reality is beyond human comprehension", you ...[text shortened]... m; omnipotence; omnipresence in the physical universe. They seem to make sense, and yet...

For there to be a God, that God must be greater than his creation. If so, then his creation will never fully understand everything about him or about the totality of reality. Therefore, there will always be some some element of faith needed in him, to see beyond what his finite creation has limitations to.

Originally posted by whodey
For there to be a God, that God must be greater than his creation. If so, then his creation will never fully understand everything about him or about the totality of reality. Therefore, there will always be some some element of faith needed in him, to see beyond what his finite creation has limitations to.

Not really true.

You can understand something that is "greater" than you.

Isaiah 55:8-9

Originally posted by whodey
For there to be a God, that God must be greater than his creation. If so, then his creation will never fully understand everything about him or about the totality of reality. Therefore, there will always be some some element of faith needed in him, to see beyond what his finite creation has limitations to.

So not only are you taking on faith the fact that god exists, but you are also accepting that you can't make any real sense of his most important properties?

Can you really not see how some people would find this odd?

Originally posted by Positional Player
Not really true.

You can understand something that is "greater" than you.

You may have understanding of God, however, do you understand everything about him? If so please share. How did he create the heavens? How did he create the fish in the sea? How can he be omnipresent? The scripture provided Isaiah 55:8-9 is an example. There will always be element to God that we must accept via faith. This does not make our faith a blind faith, however. This is because we have some understanding of who God is and evidence for his existence and of his benevolence to place our faith.

Originally posted by dottewell
So not only are you taking on faith the fact that god exists, but you are also accepting that you can't make any real sense of his most important properties?

Can you really not see how some people would find this odd?

Saying that you cannot understand everything about God and saying that you will not understand the basic elements of God are two different issues. Assuming the Bible is written via inspiriation from God, one can make sense of the basic principles by which he works. Without the Bible, this would not be so. However, reading the Bible you will soon discover that faith is required due to the limitations of our finite intellect. As Isaiah 55:8 says, his ways are higher than our ways.

Originally posted by whodey
Saying that you cannot understand everything about God and saying that you will not understand the basic elements of God are two different issues. Assuming the Bible is written via inspiriation from God, one can make sense of the basic principles by which he works. Without the Bible, this would not be so. However, reading the Bible you will soon discover t ...[text shortened]... he limitations of our finite intellect. As Isaiah 55:8 says, his ways are higher than our ways.

Yes, but if you can't make any sense of e.g. a being that exists in a non-physical realm but also inhabits all parts of the physical universe then what sense does it make to say that god IS such a being?

And if it doesn't make sense, that what exactly is your belief IN?

Originally posted by dottewell
Yes, but if you can't make any sense of e.g. a being that exists in a non-physical realm but also inhabits all parts of the physical universe then what sense does it make to say that god IS such a being?

And if it doesn't make sense, that what exactly is your belief IN?

I will try to ecplain my position once more. God is greater and infinite, therefore all creation that comes after is the lesser and finite. This is because creation is merely a portion of the greater whole or totality of reality which is God. Thus, there will be certain aspects in terms of level of comprehension that will be unknowable or knowable but not known to us. Things that can be known about God that are not known may be revealed as long as intellect permits and/or personal revelation permits that comes from God. The part about God existing in a non-physical realm is one of those areas that is more than likely unknowable. Why is it necessary that everything be knowable to you about God? You don't know everything about your spouse or mother, for example, do you? Yet, you can interact with them and enjoy them, no? The same holds true for God.

Originally posted by whodey
I will try to ecplain my position once more. God is greater and infinite, therefore all creation that comes after is the lesser and finite. This is because creation is merely a portion of the greater whole or totality of reality which is God. Thus, there will be certain aspects in terms of level of comprehension that will be unknowable or knowable but not ...[text shortened]... ple, do you? Yet, you can interact with them and enjoy them, no? The same holds true for God.

What important properties of God can you at least partially comprehend?

Originally posted by dottewell
What important properties of God can you at least partially comprehend?

I can comprehend that I am made in his image.

You may ask why this is important? It is important because it tells me that he has attributes that I have. This is important because areas of commonality infer the ability to relate one to another. The bottom line is that relationship is important not only to God, but to man. Your life is meaningless without relationship. This is a property of God that I comprehend and share with the Almighty. Love is the corner stone of all relationships. Without love, relationship is unfullfilling and meaningless. Thus knowing that God is love is the most important property to know about God. It means that he shares what is most important to me and that he is benevolent and can be trusted.

Knowing that God loves me and is benevolent leads me to another attribute or property of God which is faith. Faith is required in all loving relationships and God is no different. Whoever you are in a relationship with, there will be areas you are unsure of. You do not always know how someone will respond to you every time in the way that you would like and/or may hurt you even if it is unintentional. Nevertheless, you place your trust in them to varying degrees despite these admissions because you believe that they have your best interests at heart.

You may ask how I can make such an assumption other than scripture telling me so. Have you ever created something? Whatever it was, it was a reflection of you. Just as God is driven to creativity, so is man. This is another property of God I can comprehend. Creation is an indication of your intellect and your needs. Love is the most important need we have and thus it must also be for our creator. In fact, our creator must be the source of the love that was created in us. Faith and love is where we begin to comprehend God.

I will tell you a secret to comprehending God. God draws nigh to those that draw nigh to him. Conversley, God withdraws from those that withdraw from him. After all, he gave us free will. Acting in any other fashion would almost be like violating the free will he has bestowed upon us, no?

Originally posted by whodey
I can comprehend that I am made in his image.

You may ask why this is important? It is important because it tells me that he has attributes that I have. This is important because areas of commonality infer the ability to relate one to another. The bottom line is that relationship is important not only to God, but to man. Your life is meaningless witho ...[text shortened]... g in any other fashion would almost be like violating the free will he has bestowed upon us, no?

If your children withdrew from you, would you witdraw from them in return?