seebs

Catch-22; if I can't explain to you what I'm trying to establish the existance of, how can you verify my claims?

e.g., I can't confirm or deny the accuracy of quantum physics, because I don't understand it; the theory obviously exists, but I have no idea whether or not it denotes a part of the real world.

Many people have rejected quantum mechanics because it *sounds* contradictory. I suspect that quantum mechanics is actually a basically correct model, with a lot of details to work out, and I expect it to contradict the expectations I would have if we didn't use it - because otherwise, we wouldn't *need* it as an explanation!

Also, I think the discussion of understanding is important when one of the claims made is "this entity is mildly incomprehensible, so some attempts at proof or disproof fail because of our limitations". I've observed this in practice; most proofs for or against God rely on assumptions that I don't think scale well to a hypothetical God.

Ockhamite

Science has pushed god out of the natural world. The only place left to hide is in the imaginary ( supernatural ) realm where the need for logical coherence and comprehensibility can be suspended. But, what's unknowable to the atheist is also unknowable to the theist. Any assertion that the theist can know this god is not credible.

seebs

And a good thing, too, it was a bit cramped, I'm sure.

This sounded really impressive at first, but I find myself totally unconvinced once I filter out the loaded words and connotations.

Equivocation on "know". I can't "know" whether or not Bree exists, but I can talk to Bree and "know" her as a person - even though, technically, I can't prove that this person exists without making *huge* assumptions.

I know God. I don't know that my experience is "real", but that's true of all of my experiences; I don't see any particular reason to treat this one differently.

Ockhamite

To 'know' god is to claim knowledge of god. If your god is incomprehensible, then you have no knowledge of god. The rational person knows the difference between 'real' and imaginary.

Amos

The obvious Christian response here is that as long as science is a rewarding enterprise omniscience has not been exhausted and it don't matter much if scientists recognize this or not. Let's just hope that the exploration of God continues on all fronts and that not all scientists lose their ambition in the theory of negation or to the objections made by Christian fundamentalists.

The reason why humans cannot understand God is due to the great divide that we created ever since we chose to go-about-life-as-we-pleased' according to our own [tree of] knowledge and understanding that feeds upon external sense perception and therefore away from our intuit [tree of] life perception wherein we are the continuity of God as the created image of God. In this fashion is the increase of rational knowledge and understanding gained at the expense of our intuit awareness and that is how we become alienated from our image of God identity wherein only we can understand God as the continuity of love.

I agree with Bree that "to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour" is wrong and actually adds fuel to the fire in that it narrows this divide and so intensifies the burning desire for atonement. Along this train of thought it is better that we abandon our human identity and recall it when we are on the other side of life.

seebs

You seem to have this idea that either I have total comprehension of something, or no awareness of it at all. Where do you get this idea? I am unaware of anything I am confident I completely comprehend, but there are lots of things I have some amount of knowledge of.

As to the difference between "real" and "imaginary", I'm well aware of it, but I have not yet seen a convincing argument that "supernatural" means the same thing as "imaginary".

Ockhamite

How could you have any confidence in your knowledge that you 'know god'?
Imaginary.....Lacking a basis in reality
Supernatural....Transcending the laws of nature.

The only way to transcend the laws of nature is your imagination.

seebs

The same way I have confidence in anything else; I eventually gave up on pointless philosophical exercises and chose to accept my own experience.

You have a premise "the physically observable natural world is the whole of reality" which you carelessly omitted when presenting your syllogism, and I think it's an excellent syllogism, but when you fail to mention all the premises, it is possible that some people might mistakenly assume you don't know which assumptions you're making.

Amos

Not true at all. To understand the supernatural we must transcend human understanding. If this was not true the supernatural would exist in heaven and the mind of God would not be omniscient. In other words, there is nothing supernatural in heaven which now means that the supernatural only tells of our own oblivion.

Family Man

The real problem you have is that you can't explain what you're trying to establish. While there are scientists who do understand and can explain with a great deal of consistency what quantum theory is, even among theists, there is no consistent explanation of what god is -- and there never will be. The obvious explanation is that "god" is a purely human construct. Hence, claiming that god is incomprehensible sounds great, but does nothing to establish whether god actually exists. And without that explanation -- which appears impossible -- the god construct isn't worth much.