Then you're an atheist. That's fine.
There's no reason why that's the case. If you make no extensions about god, you make NO assumptions whatsoever. That line of argument is pretty much saying that 'god' the word doesn't link to anything. If that's true, then there's nothing to believe exists or doesn't exist.
basically. sbm is trying to act smart by assigning all this ambiguity to defend his belief without realizing he is destroying his own argument by doing so
Yep. He's arguing that no one knows what 'god' the thing is, only what 'god' the word is. But since he's breaking the two apart, there's really nothing he can say at the moment.
its humorous because he used to start throwing bible scriptures at me during these discussions, but now is claiming he doesn't believe nor disbelieve this "god" en y that we can't define or explain
Yes, partly you are correct, in that in reality you cannot make any extensions and thus no assumptions. To do so is the epitome of folly, or a waste of time.
If God is beyond our understanding, unknowable, a mystery, whatever adjective you choose to use, then basically that is just saying that everything else is merely guesswork, conjecture, whatever.
That is fine to do if you have nothing better to do, but it is akin to playing child games like tag or hide-n-seek.
There actually may well be nothing to believe exists or doesn't exist, and all of this may be a huge elaborate dream, and you may wake up tomorrow and know all the answers, and wonder about the dream you had writing on ST about God, and at that point you will have then realized it was only a dream.
Yep. It's like if I tried to rock the world with my agnosticism toward pkocadfed. I personally have no idea if pkocadfed exists, and neither does anyone else. I'm just smart enough to realize I don't know anything about pkocadfed.
he's making the case for pastafarianism
That's a contradiction. God cannot be completely beyond understanding if we believe he is.
I think anything, and I mean ANYTHING, is possible.
Nah. The FSM still has extensions, so we have an idea what we're talking about. He's not even at a point of saying, "You can't prove me wrong." He's pretty much throwing an aborted fetus on a canvas and walking away.
You even think that it's possible that there are impossible things?
It sounds like a contradiction, and if God is unknowable or unfathomable, then nothing about God is therefore impossible, but it is more a conundrum.
What is impossible is the human ability to understand the unknowable, the contradictory, the impossible.
How is it possible to understand the impossible in human terms, whereas it may be that only God can?
As contradictory as that sounds, yes, from a Devine point of view that may well be the case.
That's part of Decartes' proof for the existence of god. It's the idea that a negative can only be understood in terms of the positive. That's actually a line of reasoning I referenced in the last religious thread I got involved in.
Anyway, that's not the point of the conversation. I don't put it past god to be completely incomprehensible. You do, by saying you comprehend that he's incomprehensible. That cannot be true, and it has nothing to do with god. It has everything to do with the way humans think. God being god doesn't magically fix that logical breakdown.
What if this "reality" that we do everything in, turns out to be just a dream that we wake up from at some indeterminate future point in time?
Then what will you say in retrospect about this point in time now?
But if god is incomprehensible, how do you know he's divine?
Well actually I "think" He is incomprehensible, but I do not Know this to be the case.
No doubt God IS whatever God wants to be no matter what any of us think.
Dunno. Depends on what I was asked. Same thing is true if someone asks me about my childhood.
Not true. You don't attribute to him any power at all, so it's not a logical implication that he can be whatever he wants to be. He is what he is, because that's the iden y principle, which is self-evident. Everything else is an assumption.
As far as thinking and knowing, there is no real difference to speak about. No one is arguing about whether god does or does not exist. Merely people are debating whether it makes sense to believe (think) he exists. So thinking is the important part here.
I don't KNOW, I am guessing, and using dictionary definitions, what else?
i.e. di·vine1
diˈvīn/
adjective
adjective: divine; comparative adjective: diviner; superlative adjective: divinest
1.
of, from, or like God or a god.
"heroes with divine powers"
synonyms: godly, angelic, seraphic, saintly, beatific;
See my last post. For this thread, there's literally no difference between believing something and "knowing it" in the colloquial sense.
I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. I see no reason why God cannot BE whatever God wants to be, whenever He wants to be, however He wants to be.
His reality may be the only true reality, and ours may be the dream state that eventually we awaken from.
I don't think anyone does. The point is that once you say that about him, you no longer can argue that he's completely incomprehensible.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
