Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The comprehensibility of God


Will Due

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Science doesn’t support God, nor can it. 
 

cormac

 

Soon I hope the us versus them thing is going to come to an end. Of course, science supports the realities of God. Everything that I know about science versus the nonsense that some scientists promote shows me all that should be known in my opinion about what God is. I love science even though like so many other things in human life, it has its cult leaders.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I know it's shocking. To realize that instead of being scientific you're actually being religious. The proof of it is shown how science is continuously used to justify a mental construct about religion which is a substitution for what would ordinarily exist in the way a person thinks religiously.

It's not shocking in the least. All you have shown is a great lack of understanding of science and a mind jailed by religion. You're posts are complete nonsense. I hope your enjoying them, because you simply look the fool from any other perspective. 

You're preaching turns many away from religion. In fact many find great disdain for what you preach. Do you think your god would be pleased with that? 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Will Due said:

Soon I hope the us versus them thing is going to come to an end. Of course, science supports the realities of God. Everything that I know about science versus the nonsense that some scientists promote shows me all that should be known in my opinion about what God is. I love science even though like so many other things in human life, it has its cult leaders.

You should be honest.

You don't love science, you look for opportunities to twist anything you don't understand into a religious idea. You seek to thwart science to your own ends. 

Your mind is jailed by religion. Your posts illustrate that clearly.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It's not shocking in the least. All you have shown is a great lack of understanding of science and a mind jailed by religion. You're posts are complete nonsense. I hope your enjoying them, because you simply look the fool from any other perspective. 

You're preaching turns many away from religion. In fact many find great disdain for what you preach. Do you think your god would be pleased with that? 

 

Same old boring vitriol from you. Is there anything original still left in you? I bet there is. Just stop with the mind numb robot crap.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Will Due said:

Same old boring vitriol from you. Is there anything original still left in you? I bet there is. Just stop with the mind numb robot crap.

How about you first? 

You started it.

And you're talking about originality Mr preaching I repeat my mistakes constantly? That's a laugh.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One thing's for sure. It would be a shame if the least among us, the least so-called intelligent among us, would not be able to comprehend the simplicity of God and his universe. Surely most people alive and that have ever lived have come to a place of reasonable comprehension instead of only those who supposedly were or are of greater so-called intelligence then the average person.

God is no respecter of persons. So we're all even.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

One thing's for sure. It would be a shame if the least among us, the least so-called intelligent among us, would not be able to comprehend the simplicity of God and his universe. Surely most people alive and that have ever lived have come to a place of reasonable comprehension instead of only those who supposedly were or are of greater so-called intelligence then the average person.

God is no respecter of persons. So we're all even.

Comprehension isn't the problem. God is a very simplistic idea. A one size fits all idea. 

Most people give up on fantasy ideals, Easter bunny, Santa etc. God is the one some won't give up. Dragging others down to that level isn't always appreciated. 

You spend too much time imagining god, and not enough about real people. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Of course, science supports the realities of God. 

The only reason you call it nonsense is because you’re incapable or unwilling to understand it. Science supports nothing about God nor can it as there is nothing to test for God/a god. Not even “existence “ whatever that would mean on 11-dimensional space-time. That you WANT it to support God is wholly beside the point. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Science doesn’t support God, nor can it. 
 

cormac

 

Dear Cormac, the science that you believe and worship religiously, is blind on ultimate realities.

 

Negative evidence to the fact that scientists are blind to see ultimate realities, and blind in regard to their blind-ness, that negative evidence consists in the fact that for all they talk about, they never ever talk about what is existence.

 

Oh, dear Cormac, they also talk about existence?

You are lying, see that you yourself a worshiper of science and scientists, you do not dare talk about what is existence.

 

Oh, you talk about what is existence?

Okay, let me read what you if ever wrote about existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is definitely comprehensible, in fact I comprehend Him so well, from my reason faculty, that I have come to the rational definition of God:

"God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient."

 

If you anyone deny the existence of God, you must first know what is the definition of God from people like me, otherwise you are into denying the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

 

By way of comic relief, dear deniers of God exists, beware you don't have nothing within your skull but spaghetti noodle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, oslove said:

 

Okay, here is an analogy:

That you and me we exsist, that implicates the existence of our papa and mama.

But that implicates our mama and papa had a mama and papa too.

I'd say: wrong analogy. Unless you think God was brought forth by other gods before him.

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Then why are you following scientists in a religious sense as a substitute for following God?

It's amazing how when you accuse others of doing something, you're actually doing it yourself.

You don't see that? You haven't found out anything for yourself, you just follow the leader and believe what they tell you to believe.

 

 

Will, using the tools of critical thinking and following the evidence( facts )to arrive at the conclusion is a method which is mainstream in education and has been for years, the by product of Math classes is to cultivate this ability too. To me, it would better serve you to update your understanding of critical application. Now, that you have found your voice, you now take counters personal and now attack and flame bait as the mainstay of your posts this doesn’t advance or create quality discourse.
 

Cormac has been saying the same thing over and over that at current humans have no way to evidence god or anything supernatural and this is honest. I took Philosophy and most of the god arguments teleological and ontological do not hold up they do not have facts to support them and often the counters do a better job of supporting their side with the facts, other than Thomas Aquinas from The Five Ways, the argument from cause is a good argument while it doesn’t evidence god it is a quality argument. A good example of what it looks like to use reason employing facts. 

 

One can legitimately belief in any god on faith, they can convince themselves rationally that they are right too. This is all that is possible at this time because at this time in our human understanding we do not have a way to test for something  beyond human understanding or that is invisible or based on a subjective thought or a feeling, this is an approach used by some expressions of Christianity, you can believe whatever you want based on faith. This is your position. Yet, the most honest and appropriate conclusion is one doesn’t know because we don’t have a legit way to test for any gods. I too once, had to nurture critical thinking skills too only for me at the time I was an Atheist and now stand corrected. I have refined to Agnosticism, thanks to the immense patience of Eight bits, Raptor, Copasetic and MKLSGL I share this as help not as an admonishment. Many of us have been you too the path is immaterial learning to critically think isn’t easy or fun when you are attached to your beliefs and that is what Cormac is trying to say and has been saying. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Will, using the tools of critical thinking and following the evidence( facts )to arrive at the conclusion is a method which is mainstream in education and has been for years, the by product of Math classes is to cultivate this ability too. To me, it would better serve you to update your understanding of critical application. Now, that you have found your voice, you now take counters personal and now attack and flame bait as the mainstay of your posts this doesn’t advance or create quality discourse.
 

Cormac has been saying the same thing over and over that at current humans have no way to evidence god or anything supernatural and this is honest. I took Philosophy and most of the god arguments teleological and ontological do not hold up they do not have facts to support them and often the counters do a better job of supporting their side with the facts, other than Thomas Aquinas from The Five Ways, the argument from cause is a good argument while it doesn’t evidence god it is a quality argument. A good example of what it looks like to use reason employing facts. 

 

One can legitimately belief in any god on faith, they can convince themselves rationally that they are right too. This is all that is possible at this time because at this time in our human understanding we do not have a way to test for something  beyond human understanding or that is invisible or based on a subjective thought or a feeling, this is an approach used by some expressions of Christianity. The most honest and appropriate conclusion is one doesn’t know because we don’t have a legit way to test for any gods. 

 

Yes we do have a way to test for God. However, it's personal and subjective but it's proof or at least evidence nonetheless. The bottom line is when a statement is made that we have "no way to evidence God" it's simply not true. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It isn't critical thinking to think there isn't a way to evidence God. It's wishful thinking.

There isn't any objective evidence that there isn't a God. However, subjectively and personally one can create a belief in this as a part of their religious mental construct or there so-called reality tunnel if they so choose.

But subjectively and based on faith, there always has been and there always will be a way to evidence God.

 

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Yes we do have a way to test for God. However, it's personal and subjective but it's proof or at least evidence nonetheless. The bottom line is when a statement is made that we have "no way to evidence God" it's simply not true. 

 

 

God or a god used to be responsible for phenomena like storm, thunder, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, plagues, and so on.

Nowadays we know better, thanks to science.

"God" gets pushed further and further back to the sideline because of science.

Science discovers, hypothesizes, changes concepts that were once considered the ultimate truth; in short: science is not static. It adapts to the latest discoveries. It's a process of discovery and learning.

That in contrast to God. God is always the same. God said this, God did that, and because some humans wrote down what they considered the Word of God, thousands or a thousand  of years ago, we humans are supposed to accept the words and doctrines written down by mere people.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Will Due said:

 

Yes we do have a way to test for God. However, it's personal and subjective but it's proof or at least evidence nonetheless. The bottom line is when a statement is made that we have "no way to evidence God" it's simply not true. 

 

 

One can only do this via faith, Will. You believe in god on faith which doesn’t require any facts. Personal and subjective reflects your mental reality based on many things including how you filter incoming environmental cues through your senses. I personally think it helps a lot to have a basic understand how the brain works too. Subjective claims are outside the realm of verifiable because they are based on interpretation influenced by many factors. This link has a good explanation of the difference for your understanding. Again, you are basing your belief on god strictly on faith. I struggled immensely with thinking I knew there was no god as an Atheist once upon a time myself. Like I said after a Philosophy class and Eight Bits and a few others that were incredibly patient with me as I learned how to critically think, it is not easy, getting upset and flaming only creates conflict and gets threads shut down.

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/claims.html

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Abramelin said:

God or a god used to be responsible for phenomena like storm, thunder, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, plagues, and so on.

Nowadays we know better, thanks to science.

"God" gets pushed further and further back to the sideline because of science.

Science discovers, hypothesizes, changes concepts that were once considered the ultimate truth; in short: science is not static. It adapts to the latest discoveries. It's a process of discovery and learning.

That in contrast to God. God is always the same. God said this, God did that, and because some humans wrote down what they considered the Word of God, thousands or a thousand  of years ago, we humans are supposed to accept the words and doctrines written down by mere people.

 

Where did you come up with the idea that you're supposed to accept the words and doctrines written down by mere people, as you said? That isn't true at all. In fact, just like science, our understanding of religion and the reality of God is progressing more or less these days at the same rate that science is. Because of science, it's progress, how it's caused us to think in new ways, it's now a part of how we apply our thinking towards God and man's religions. To me, we live in an unprecedented time of being liberated from so much from the past that was an unnecessary heavy burden which simply isn't viable anymore.

Today we are finally free to individually and personally discover the true path. That pretty much was hidden and taken away from us in the past. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

It isn't critical thinking to think there isn't a way to evidence God. It's wishful thinking.

There isn't any objective evidence that there isn't a God. However, subjectively and personally one can create a belief in this as a part of their religious mental construct or there so-called reality tunnel if they so choose.

But subjectively and based on faith, there always has been and there always will be a way to evidence God.

 

 

 

No, Will why not Google critical thinking and try and learn something this would be a better use for your time. There isn’t a viable objective way to test for any god, we simply do not know at this time, could someone come up with a way, I am open to the evidence of this happens, but so far no one has. 
 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

No, Will why not Google critical thinking and try and learn something this would be a better use for your time. There isn’t a viable objective way to test for any god, we simply do not know at this time, could someone come up with a way, I am open to the evidence of this happens, but so far no one has. 
 

 

 

F A I T H

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Will Due said:

 

F A I T H

 

 

How do you test something taken on faith, would be my question to you? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

. In fact, just like science, our understanding of religion and the reality of God is progressing more or less these days at the same rate that science is.

The reason our 'understanding' of God changes is, because more and more gets explained by science. So, our view on God has to change with it.

I expect that God'll be an idea of the ancient past in the near future. Just like Flat Earth.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

God is just a name. A catch-all.

Joe, Alan, Zeus, etc. Just a title.

Indeed.:tu: The brain loves to create narratives around ideas as if it is an actuality. It is how the brain works by default. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Indeed.:tu: The brain loves to create narratives around ideas as if it is an actuality. It is how the brain works by default. 

I like to call them models of reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • This topic was locked and unlocked

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.