Religion, what do you think?

[mawk]

but what does that mean in a context that isn't strictly mathematical? I'm missing the middleman between "god is omnipotent" and "this means religion is all false"

you're turning god into a number and then seeing what the human mind thinks of that number. that's not a good way to go about theology.

also I'm missing your response to the fact that religion does not in fact require the human mind to understand god completely. most religion even supports this assertion that god's full nature is beyond human understanding. it's allowed for that. it's part of the philosophy and part of the practice.

 

[Level10]

but what does that mean in a context that isn't strictly mathematical? I'm missing the middleman between "god is omnipotent" and "people can't understand god."

Human understanding is limited. God's power is unlimited, as is his knowledge. To know or understand these two attributes of God (the attributes that sit at the base of his godliness), human knowledge would also need to be unlimited.

you're turning god into a number and then seeing what the human mind thinks of that number. that's not a good way to go about theology.

I made no assertions as to the numerical value of God.

also I'm missing your response to the fact that religion does not in fact require the human mind to understand god completely. most religion even supports this assertion that god's full nature is beyond human understanding. it's allowed for that. it's part of the philosophy and part of the practice.

If God's full nature is beyond human understanding, how can religions that place various human attributes such as jealousy, anger, love, etc, on God be viewed as anything other than false? The idea that any such being fits into categories that we define is nothing more than a testament to human arrogance. The idea that an omniscient, omnipotent being cares for our individual well being is as absurd as the idea that you or I care for the bacteria that are washed down the drain when we shower.

 

[No ID]

"If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha,
if you meet your Father kill your Father,
free from everything you are bound by nothing".
-Some Old Monk-

 

[mawk]

The idea that an omniscient, omnipotent being cares for our individual well being is as absurd as the idea that you or I care for the bacteria that are washed down the drain when we shower.

but neither you nor I are omniscient. we don't know shit about the bacteria. we can't know shit about the bacteria. are you saying the only difference between god and us is scale now?

I made no assertions as to the numerical value of God.

My thoughts on religion stem from my thoughts on God. If such a being exists that warrants the term "god", then this being must, by it's nature, be infinite. The human mind cannot comprehend infinity, therefore the human mind cannot comprehend any being that warrants being called "god", therefore all religions are false.

god is infinite, so god=infinity - Level10, 2009

 

[Level10]

The idea that an omniscient, omnipotent being cares for our individual well being is as absurd as the idea that you or I care for the bacteria that are washed down the drain when we shower.

but neither you nor I are omniscient. we don't know shit about the bacteria. we can't know shit about the bacteria. are you saying the only difference between god and us is scale now?

What other difference would you put forward?

I made no assertions as to the numerical value of God.

My thoughts on religion stem from my thoughts on God. If such a being exists that warrants the term "god", then this being must, by it's nature, be infinite. The human mind cannot comprehend infinity, therefore the human mind cannot comprehend any being that warrants being called "god", therefore all religions are false.

god is infinite, so god=infinity - Level10, 2009

I can't see where I used that logic. I can see where I used this logic:

1. God is commonly defined as having attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.
2. These attributes, by their definitions, are limitless.
3. A limitless being can also be called infinite.
4. Therefore God is infinite.
5. The human mind cannot comprehend infinity.
6. Therefore the human mind cannot comprehend God.
7. Therefore any religions assertions made about God are totally baseless.

Rather than

1. God is infinite.
2. Therefore God is infinite.

 

[mawk]

What other difference would you put forward?

omniscience

 

[mawk]

besides that, I like how you just keep sidetracking this from my central point; religion does not attempt to fully comprehend whatever infinite nature god might have. it acknowledges that we cannot understand god in full. I have yet to hear exactly what this does to your first and central assertion; you simply took it aside to say "well if god is infinite that also mean he cannot have human emotions."

(which is a ridiculous thing to use to disprove religion in the first place. of course any speculation on the matter would try to personify god, to outline the basics in terms people can understand. the fact that the bible does not stick to strict scientific literary conventions proves nothing.)

 

[Level10]

What other difference would you put forward?

omniscience

Omniscience. Unlimited knowledge. Contrasted with limited knowledge. Same aspect, different scale.

p.s. your other argument, although you do not explicitly state that god=infinity, you mock up a strong relationship between the two and imply the rest.

I'm interested in knowing where my argument fails.

besides that, I like how you just keep sidetracking this from my central point; religion does not attempt to fully comprehend whatever infinite nature god might have. it acknowledges that we cannot understand god in full.

Religion acknowledges that we cannot fully understand God, then goes on to apply various human attributes to God.

Also, I can read normal sized text, I don't have any problems with my vision.

 

[mawk]

Religion acknowledges that we cannot fully understand God, then goes on to apply various human attributes to God.

(which is a ridiculous thing to use to disprove religion in the first place. of course any speculation on the matter would try to personify god, to outline the basics in terms people can understand. the fact that the bible does not stick to strict scientific literary conventions proves nothing.)

Omniscience. Unlimited knowledge. Contrasted with limited knowledge. Same aspect, different scale.

you're getting us both tangled in semantic bullshit and forgetting that your analogy (god med human = human med bacteria) only dealt with size. a human being is not capable of understanding the hopes and dreams of his bacteria, but something is omniscient can easily understand us.

Also, I can read normal sized text, I don't have any problems with my vision.

I'd disagree.

 

[Level10]

Religion acknowledges that we cannot fully understand God, then goes on to apply various human attributes to God.

(which is a ridiculous thing to use to disprove religion in the first place. of course any speculation on the matter would try to personify god, to outline the basics in terms people can understand. the fact that the bible does not stick to strict scientific literary conventions proves nothing.)

And what grounds do religions have to speculate on the nature of God, then claim their speculation as absolute fact, to the extent that any who do not accept their speculation suffer any number of horrible fates?

Omniscience. Unlimited knowledge. Contrasted with limited knowledge. Same aspect, different scale.

you're getting us both tangled in semantic bullshit and forgetting that your analogy (god med human = human med bacteria) only dealt with size. a human being is not capable of understanding the hopes and dreams of his bacteria, but something is omniscient can easily understand us.

My analogy dealt not only with size, but also knowledge and power. We have infinitely more knowledge than a bacteria, and have the ability to to exponentially more things than they are able to. I never mentioned size once.

Also, I can read normal sized text, I don't have any problems with my vision.

I'd disagree.

And now we shift closer and closer to the personal attacks. If you want to continue this discussion, I'd ask that you show the same respect I'm showing you by not trying to insult me.

 

[shadow]

Thread closed by popular demand.

 

[mawk]

My analogy dealt not only with size, but also knowledge and power. We have infinitely more knowledge than a bacteria, and have the ability to to exponentially more things than they are able to. I never mentioned size once.

our knowledge is obviously not infinite compared to a bacteria's. we are not omniscient. remember your own arguments a page back?

And what grounds do religions have to speculate on the nature of God, then claim their speculation as absolute fact, to the extent that any who do not accept their speculation suffer any number of horrible fates?

I dunno. what grounds do you have to do the same?