Beyond Comprehension

I am not "saying" anything, other than referring to a passage in the bible that addresses the human condition of suffering without apparent cause. I purport that this explanation is not incomprehensible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My opinion is my own and not very rich in experience or knowledge, but since you demand it I have question. You state "the suffering of children", could you be specific?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not disagreeing. As I said earlier, it's not about understanding scripture but understanding the god who said it. Can you make sense of God's actions in this case, why would he make little children suffer for their father's sins??

Can you come to some understanding of God by those words?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You assume alot, with all due respect. God did bequeath us free will, but when children suffer, it's his fault? If a child is born with a deformity or condition that was enviormentally or socially caused because of our fathers abuse of the land or sin, your posistion is that God should step in and save the child in all cases? So we rape the land and commit sin, but there should be no negative consequences?

That is incomprehensible to me.

 

I asked if God's actions in this case make you understand Him better? Is this your way of saying, 'No, God is incomprehensible?' or "it is beyond human comprehension to try to figure out why'?

 

I have a better understanding of your question now. My apologies. The reason you run up against this wall with theists, in my mind, is because of the sin of pride.

I speak only for myself, but the more I searched for a way to explain it to you, it began to border on defining God. This does not lead to understanding, IMO. Most theists, I think would in some way feel this way in some degree.

So to answer your OP, IMO, that is why you have trouble getting someone to explain it the way you want. Your asking the person explain something in a way that does not lead to understanding.

Is my understanding of God, in this case, made better?Yes.

 

I think most people would agree, theists and atheists alike, that if God were to cause children to suffer for whatever reason then that behavior would be completely ungodlike for a loving god. Now it may be possible that an evil god would do such a thing.

When we were discussing your scriptural paraphrasing, the thought that God might be evil never entered the conversation.

Rationally speaking, does it not seem more logical for an evil god to do such a thing? This is much more comprehensible. So it seems that for some reason, god's imcomprehension arises from the premis that He is good and is unable to commit dispicable acts. The only way He can do so is to be incomprehensible.

Monotheists cannot rationalize evil behavior by a good god. Polytheists have no such problem.

 

Can you give an example of "a dispicable act of God?" I infer from your post that when there is suffering in this world of innocents, it is God's will. Though he is the creator of all things, and could wink this world from existence, do you think he causes suffering?

 

:shrug:
What have we be talking about for the last 2 hours? Unless you think its a good thing for God to make little children suffer for their father's sins.

Oh, how about in Genesis, God kills some guy for either whacking off or for deliberately not impregnating his brother's wife.

As for suffering.... you just said he 's the creator of all things.

 

WHY do people think a god could not be evil??? If somehow I find there is a god then I'd need to know something of its character, motivations & morals.

 

You didn't reply to my inquiry.

What exactly do you think is wrong with quoting, what exactly do you think is wrong with naming one's references?

I could easily put a position forward as "my opinion" - even though I would actually be paraphrasing or even directly quoting a text originally written by someone else. And if you don't know that text - and chances are you don't know everything that has ever been written - you could easily be mislead to think I actually posted "my opinion".

As for your "quoting no one" - that's nonsense. You are putting forward a pretty standard kind of atheism that I have seen many many times before. Perhaps you aren't directly quoting anyone, but you are certainly not putting forward an original position either.

Just because you don't quote anyone or don't name your references does not make your position one bit more unique or personal. It just means you are relatively skilled in a particular brand of creative writing, that's all.


So, again:

 

So you're being intentionally vague now? OK. I see that you don't have an opinion on this. Figures.

 

accurate, however

basically there are about 4 standard atheist arguments offerred

my point is why bother to lodge an argument against theism that doesn't even comply with theistic standards?

 

Ooooh, a somewhat tasty helping of ambiguity. Excellent.

Never counted them but thanks for doing so.

Ummm, because I'm an atheist. Why squawk about atheism then? You know what I think of arguing something that we, logically speaking, need not bother with. I reiterate.... We do not know anything about god or even if He exists. Yes or no and leave it at that. As an atheist I'd be happy to do that.

 

1) I think you are assuming you are winning the argument when this happens.
2) I have trouble attributing motives to my wife all the time and I am sure she has that problem in relation to me. Why is 'I don't know' assumed to mean that the whole edifice must fall?
3) How far into an argument must you go before you say 'I don't know' ?

Frankly the problem I have with most theists is that they do think they know and do have explanations for why God does things.

It seems rather likely that it would be hard to understand such an entity in its entirety.

 

If a theist wants to argue that god is comprehensible by quoting scripture from an entity that they consider incomprehensible to us mere mortals then yes, I have a problem with that. A theist does have a mind of their own, no? Then let them speak without the aid of text. Why is that so difficult?

 

My point is that (polished) atheism never (directly) launches an attack on theism by redefining the state of affairs of theism (eg - "we do not know anything about god therefore -yada yada yada .....")

 

Why don't you "leave it at that" then?

If you are so sure you know the truth about God, then why do you keep discussing these topics about God and knowledge of God?

You certainly give me the impression that
either
1. you are not so sure you know the truth about God after all,
or
2. you want to convince other people to quit talking about God or to quit arguing against atheists.

Regarding no. 2, your approach with creative writing in the brand of philosophy in order to convince other people to quit talking about God or to quit arguing against atheists - that approach of yours is an insult to human intelligence.

 

What you are saying above implies a particular metaphysics about how human thinking and deciding exists. And it is this metaphysics that needs to be cleared first, before we can successfully proceed to other points of the discussion at hand.
Namely, the particular metaphysics that states something to the effect of "Every person has a mind of their own that can be completely under the person's own control and making."

Now, is it true that people's minds are like that?
How does a person exist?
How does a person's mind exist?
What can truly be called one's own?
What can a person truly control?

Answer these, and we'll see what next.

 

This is my first reaction too - and I have a similar reaction to anyone who either is more advanced than myself (in a particular area (like running, or business) or in general ("as a person")), or who simply claims to be superior to me.

So I think this resentment or being displeased with theists who think or claim they know God and about God, is actually part of a broader and more general cognitive/emotional/ethical/philosophical phenomenon. And that as such, it might require a broader and more general approach to be resolved.