seebs

Agreed, incomprehensibility is not a proof of existance. However, the lack of a *complete* explanation does not keep us from forming *usable* explanations, however woefully incomplete they may be, and the construct appears to be worth a fair bit to many of us.

Ockhamite

Seebs....

I am pleased that you're willing to accept your own experiences here in the real world as being capable of validating whatever it is that you have chosen to accept about god. If god is not of this world, then, whatever you experienced, the laws of nature can account for, and it was not god.

Now these may be pointless philosophical exercises......i don't know. I choose to believe that what you say to me could make a difference in my life. i have seen no one with the conviction of faith to move even a mustard seed.

Corona688

The problem isn't that there's an INCOMPLETE understanding of god. By His very definition, he's impossible to prove one way or the other. Thus we don't give the idea much weight.

seebs

I see. So, for instance, if a unit in a Civ game encounters another unit, it can be sure that the other unit was not controlled by the "player" some units talk about, because we know that everything is "of the world".

Furthermore, the things that have convinced me have been experiential, and I am not convinced that all of my experiences reflect the natural world; I tend to assume they do by default, but I am hardly willing to *commit* to such a view.

The God I believe in reserves the right to alter the natural world. As such, some "evidence" may be observed, although I think He's pretty careful not to tip His hand too much.

Heh. I have friends who claim to have seen or participated in miraculous healings. Since I have no bias towards or against these, I remain agnostic. It pleases me to believe that some of these may be genuine "miracles". If not, well, fine by me. I don't believe because of alleged miracles.

I tend to be in the "two boats and a helicopter" school, so it seems perfectly acceptable to me that miracles should move through the world. Yesterday, a guy in the parking lot outside Target was asking everyone if they had jumper cables, or could lend him the money to buy jumper cables. I bought him a pair of jumper cables. Now, if he prayed, does that mean his prayer was answered? I bought him the jumper cables because I believe it is morally right to do such things; I believe this in part because of my religion. So... Answered prayer? Happy coincidence? I can't answer these questions. It would certainly, it seems to me, be within God's power to suggest to me that, rather than heading straight home, I should run over to Target to buy a pan, and should do so at such a time as to run into someone who desparately needed to meet a charitable person who could spare $20. It also seems quite possible that such a thing is pure coincidence.

I remain agnostic on the question, but I believe in God anyway.

Perchance

If something is truly unknowable and incomprehensible, then isn't even making the claim that it is unknowable or incomprehensible a claim of knowledge? In other words, how do theists know that god is unknowable or incomprehensible?

It seems to be a circular question from which there is no escape, at least logically. Faith might offer one, but where does the faith come from? Direct experience? (I always wondered how that works. Does god come to someone and say, "Yes, I'm unknowable?" ).

Being told by other people that he is? (This would fit in with human experience in other fields, where people are sometimes told something that isn't true- such as that people with one foot they hop around on live in other parts of the world- and accept it because they don't know a way of seeing for themselves).

Because the arguments won't fit any other way? (Perhaps the most "logical" explanation of faith).

-Perchance.

Godless Dave

I think the idea that god cannot be fully understood by humans should be the number one argument among theists for religious tolerance. If an individual cannot fully understand the divine, then it stands to reason that the people who wrote the Bible, Quran, Torah, Talmud, Bhagivad Ghita, etc. etc. didn't have a complete understanding of it either. So it's hubris to claim that any one religion is the One True Faith or to try to impose one's faith on others.

This seems to be the thinking among theists like seebs, but too many others seem to have the attitude that "No one can fully comprehend God - but I comprehend Him more than you do!"

Here's my take - I see the monotheistic God concept as similar to a scientist growing a culture in a Petri dish. To the organisms in the dish, the dish is their whole world and they can't detect anything beyond it. Some of them may infer that they were created by the scientist, but they have very little information to work with to determine his motives and desires. Meanwhile the scientist may very well love his creation (or maybe not!), but cannot communicate with them directly or really understand how they think and feel. So even if there is a creator god, we can't comprehend him and he can't comprehend us.

scumble

You aren't actually agnostic then, are you?

Now, the problem I immediately see with this "not understanding God" business, is that certain are assumed about God's purpose. The old "I don't know what the plan is but it must be good" type of thing assumes God is doing stuff for us. Is God only concerned with us?
From what I can see, if God exists, humans aren't necessarily the most important item on his/her/its agenda, given the large number of things that can kill humans - of course, a Christian has to accept God has a purpose for everything.

Unfortunately, even this won't work, since assuming God has a purpose implies understanding of God. One cannot have certainty of God's reality at the same time as almost complete incomprehension.

Just about anything people believe about God is an article of faith and has little to do with reasoned argument, because when one doesn't understand something, one can either believe some things or accept that comprehension may not ever happen and leave it at that.

What Christian theology has tried to achieve is the bending of everything into accord with asserted "facts" about God.

By the way Dave, I like that argument for tolerance. You wonder why they all don't get together and compare notes

seebs

It's generally not a claim of certainty, but a "pretty good guess" or a logical conclusion of other beliefs.

I think anything that is posited to be outside of time as we understand it could be safely called "incomprehensible" without real fear of contradiction.

Oxymoron

Very tricksy. However, the statement works just as well as

I know X. 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.

none of which establishes anything about the existence of X. Try making X 'Allah', or 'Vishnu'. Do you know X now? Is that because X does not exist, or because X is unknowable? If you can categorically say that X does not exist, then there clearly are reasons to "treat this one differently" - there are criteria for deciding the existence or otherwise of X; or if X is unknowable, then it exists, and your beliefs are (at best) interestingly polytheistic, or (more likely) Just Plain Wrong.

seebs

Well, technically, since I'm not claiming to know, only to believe, I might argue that I am.

There are many issues on which I don't have an opinion, and many more on which my opinion is not particularly strongly held.

I don't know, but I am assured that He is concerned with us *somewhat*.

I don't agree at all. I don't need to comprehend meteorology to be sure of tornadoes. I can be pretty sure that *something* behaves in certain ways, and I can draw conclusions from that.

Or some combination of the above. I continue to collect new data.