A God We Know Nothing About

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by PsychoticEpisode, Apr 4, 2009.

  1. Bishadi Banned Banned


    and even to plagerize something is not horid, i still learned a lesson, especially when you are willing to suggest; maybe i wasn't the first....

    that is something i can honor

    again fair............. nothing better than an honest person, as it allows trust to evolve.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Maybe you have placed more importance than is necessary to what I am responding to?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I found it oppressive.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    I don't believe in God. Whether he exists or not..I wouldn't be able to have faith in "it".

    I'm not really an atheist, but I believe that if less religious people would try to expand their belief across the globe then less people would feel confronted with this issue and therefore would probably never or almost never think about it. Offering people the possibility to check out your religion, or to at least learn something about its existence is cool since I consider religion as one of our most important cultural factors, but as soon as you're trying to explain the "heretics" that their life is valueless without a God and Jesus, then I think you've crossed the line of...tolerable.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I doubt many people would truly hold such a belief... nearly all beliefs in God come with at least a few concepts of God attached (e.g. benevolent).

    Further, one who comes to the conclusion that God is unknowable would almost certainly be someone who recognises the irrationality of belief in such a God... but would rather merely conclude that "it is a possibility" - along with every other logical possibility.

    Next, the person would be unlikely to refer to this as a "belied in God" but rather a belief in a first-cause, or some such, as they should realise that the very label "God" comes loaded with various baggage that they don't want.

    Also there are many things that might exist that we can know nothing about (e.g. anything external to our universe) but can merely speculate on.

    So, ultimately, such a belief, as proposed, would be nothing more than a declaration that "I believe there exists things that are unknowable".
    If someone wants to call this a belief in "God"... hmmm.

    I'd probably still call them out on it. Not their belief per se but their willingness to attach the label of "God" to this unknowable thing they believe exists.
  8. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    I wonder if it is possible to believe in such a thing without expressing some form of idolatry. I would think that it would become a natural course of direction to explore even the most vague belief in god.

    The most basic belief would eventually evolve into a religion in due time, but for the sake of argument, I think that an atheist would still be inclined to argue the existence of a god, regardless of the absence of ritual and dogma. There would still be a squabble.

    Both opinions would play a role in society. I find it hard to believe that a belief in god, no matter how basic, doesn't come with some preconceived notions concerning ethical and moral questions. For sure, atheist have their own set of values, too.

    I'm certain that they find the trapping most irritating, but I've never met one who didn't love to argue about the nonexistence of a god.
  9. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    The Heisenberg Principle of Faith: You cannot believe in God and know anything about Him at the same time. You cannot have knowledge of a God and belief in it at the same time.

    Any idea or notion is speculation. To know with absolute certainty even one thing about the Almighty would eliminate the belief. A theist is a believer first, speculator second. Theists know nothing of the god they believe in, it can't be any other way. To know would discount their theism.
  10. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member


    Faith is the foundational gift, yes...but according to II PETER 1:5-8 it is just the beginning of the journey.
    The believer who is given this faith then adds to it theses other things.

    II PETER 1:5-7
    5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
    6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
    7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

    Faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity.
    These seven comprise the stature of a perfect man.
    You see that knowledge is not only allowed but expected as a part of normal growth.

    II PETER 1:8
    For if these things be in you, and abound, they make [you that ye shall] neither [be] barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    EPHESIANS 4:13
    Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:

    The mystery of God is...Christ in you, the hope of glory. Colossians 1:27
    We are not only to know something about God, but we are to become one with Him.
    "I'm in the Father, the Father is in me, I in you, you in Me"...
    That is the very definition of knowledge in every meaning of the term.

    Your "Heisenberg Principle" does not apply to the Bible and I would question any other place it has also been used.
    No square circles or boxes too big for God to lift...
    Come on please. Let's be serious here.
    This is Sciforums after all.
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2009
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

  12. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Epicurus and the Buddha both had positions equivalent to this.

    Epicurus felt that if there are gods, then by there nature they have no concern with us.

    The Buddha felt the gods were irrelevant in that only you can find enlightenment for yourself and that if there are gods, then they are so beyond our conception of god that calling them gods cannot be even close.

    Personally I feel any god that requires belief isn't much of a god.
  13. swarm Registered Senior Member

    What facts are you presenting?

    You do know that without actually presenting any facts, you are making his point for him?
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    The "fact" is that PE is not interested in finding out the truth about God, the evidence is in his writings (masqueraded as enquiry) .

  15. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member



    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 5, 2009
  16. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    The fact is you believe in God. This makes you a theist. You cannot know about God for if you did then you would have no reason to believe in Him. God would be a known quantity. Can you test this? No. Belief in God continues.

    The bible is a book, this is fact. Let's say i never saw one but believed a bible exists. If I didn't know a book from a car then I would need to at least see a book with my own eyes to acknowledge its existence. Can I test this? Yes. My belief in a bible would end right there.

    How many times have theists been asked to prove their stance? Countless times. What I'm saying is that if you believe then you obviously haven't proven anything. You are not required to prove God if you only believe in Him. However this would have to take an admission from the theist that they just don't know anything about the God they believe in. Basically that would remove any challenge to a theist about proving their God.

    So I`m right back where I started. All you have to do is believe or not believe and leave it at that.
  17. Bishadi Banned Banned

    well said, i agree

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    PE, this must be an issue with semantics. Surely you are not saying that once something is proven, you no longer believe in it? (i.e. you don't believe in facts)

    (Also, lest this comment be misconstrued, I am agnostic and not promoting any god, factual or faith based)
  19. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately that is the case.

    Belief can always be considered rational when there is no direct knowledge of anything involved and speculation is the only viable alternative. I for one cannot entirely discount that a god(s) exists. The theist/atheist argument rests solely on this claim: God is or isn't. To substantiate either side's take would require knowledge that is currently unavailable.

    The trouble is they can't. Without personification, there would be no theists.(I'd have to rethink Bishadi's nature is God conclusion although I don't believe he thinks of nature as an entity)

    Agreed..... In a nutshell this is what I've been contending. Ok to speculate on God as first cause. However to speculate on a speculation.... well then you've simply crossed the boundary from the sublime to the ridiculous.

    Exactly. How many theists would freely admit that God is one of the unknowables? I wish they all would admit this because everything else connected to it, i.e. religion, is also in the same category. The ones that do admit god is unknown and are prepared to live with just that are the true believers.

    That is your prerogative and is essential to a vibrant discussion forum.

    Been fun

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  20. Bishadi Banned Banned

    must take your fire; as that was fun for me too (awesome post)

    if each were born with such wisdom, offered to them at a young age, mankind would have a much better chance as a whole to eventually reach the peaks of the unknown knowledge.

    i see knowledge is evolving; mankind is basically conscious mass, defining itself

    it is almost like existence (God) as the collective of mass, energy and all time into ONE, in which we were all born within (evolved) and capable of understanding our presence/existence.... of itself.

    kind of esoteric but i believe it is a fair analogy, any others see something in the idea?

    Is existence defining itself?
  21. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    The I'll believe when I see it idiom? I see what you're saying. Perhaps I should have said continue to believe. Language is always a stumbling block it seems

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Not sure if that means it's easier to make someone believe or not believe

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I would have no reason to continue to believe in something I just found out about. My belief, for that particular instance, would end right there. It would not be unknown to me anymore. People used to believe the Earth was flat. Once the facts were presented that belief had no meaning or ceased to be a belief.

    Semantics are a bitch. I did the best I could. It's like when they used to teach phonetics...the kid's grammar and spelling were terrible but the most important thing was to convey the message.
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2009
  22. Bishadi Banned Banned

    sorry to butt in

    are you suggesting; you are evolving?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. swarm Registered Senior Member

    What truth?

Share This Page