yguy

The foundation of a building is the beginnings of something that will eventually be completed. Verbally speaking, defining God is analogous to building a skyscraper of infinite height - and just as feasible.

Yes.

No, I don't. You do that, or try to.

Nowhere357

Why is that? It's not even a first little baby step?

And the construction would in theory be based on reality. Is that the part that bothers you?

Since you mean "theory based on reality", please look those words up in a dictionary. A theory explains facts which describe reality.

But I think there IS an oxymoron here - any theory which says a thing (such as a god) exists yet is not part of reality.

If a thing exists, it is in reality. That's what the words mean.

Why is that, exactly? What ways can reality be affected, such that the effects cannot be verified empirically? Do you have any analogies or examples? Can you support this statement at all?

Or is it something you just made up?

Then why do you use it?

Who said anyone said God is unknowable?

Is it possible for you to actually state your point?

Not to me you haven't. And you've turned down repeated opportunities to make yourself clear.

I know that's how you like to play the game, but it's starting to look as if you are unwilling to face your own thoughts.

yguy

Because it is a way to seek God in the intellect - and that's the last place you'll find Him.

Excuse me. I emphasized those exact words for a reason. What you are saying is that in theory, your construction is based in reality. That's like saying in theory, we can predict the next thunderstorm and exactly when and where the first drop of rain will hit the ground. We're closer now to doing that than we'll ever be to having a theoretical construction of God based on reality.

God is not a thing. Jesse and I thrashed this out in the Sci forum a few weeks ago.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=52102

If random motion has a cause, which seems logical, I suggest that cause ultimately is God.

I don't. You just want me to so bad you think I do.

You did:

What purpose does this "god is unknowable" idea serve?

Nowhere357

So to know something we should not think about it. Whatever.

No, it's (exactly) like saying the construction would in theory be based on reality. Which of course is the part that bothers you.

Great opportunity to make a point here. yguy, I am losing respect for both your reasoning ability and your debating style. Why should I accept a reading suggestion from you?

So you see your mysterious, evasive tactics can backfire.

And I would say that god is not a thing - unless god exists. Maybe it would help if you gave your definitions for "thing" and "exist". I think you are using non-standard meanings, and I don't know what they are.

Here is the point where IF YOU WISH TO BE UNDERSTOOD then you will provide your definitions. This is also the point where if you wish to protect a pathetically weak position, then you should ignore the request and just move on.

And I suggest it's a life giving property of reality. But I just made that up.

No, I really don't. Try re-reading the relevant posts. What I want is for you to say what you mean. When you evade, I must assume, and my assumptions won't always be favorable. You see yguy, unless your agenda is to serve as a mole against theism, you are hurting your cause.

Your position may be supportable. After all, the zen that can be talked about is not zen - so your idea is not necessarily bizarre. But I'm only guessing at your position - which is a silly state of affairs. I think I'll quit. Not worth it.

I did not. Read the relevant posts again.


Second try:
----------------------------------------------------
Why is that, exactly? What ways can reality be affected, such that the effects cannot be verified empirically? Do you have any analogies or examples? Can you support this statement at all?

Or is it something you just made up?
------------------------------------------------------

yguy

"...he opened his mind to Jacurutu, seeking to know nothing about it. Knowing was a barrier which prevented learning."
-- Leto II, Children of Dune, Frank Herbert, 1976.


I'm about as threatened by this idea as I am by the idea that my thoughts are controlled by a pink unicorn in the basement of a Tibetan monastery.

You presume I am somehow goal oriented. On the contrary, I don't give a damn whether you read it or not...or whether you continue to respond or not. Trust me.

God exists, and He is not a thing.

Read the thread I referred you to on the subject, or forget it. I'm not gonna re-invent the wheel.

And this demonstrates what, exactly? That because you made a capricious fabrication, I did the same?

I have.

Thanks for the advice.

Screw that. By implication, you attributed the "God is unknowable" idea to me with the question.

Jobar

Jobar:
And I notice you have given no answer to my two simple question, to wit:
"You say you believe in an undefineable god, right? Now, even though you do not call yourself Christian, you seem to be saying that the god you believe in is the God of the Bible. Are those fair statements?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


yguy:
Yes.

OK, thank you.

I think you are attempting to carry out a shotgun wedding between the Bible and the Tao Te Ching: "The Jehovah who can be spoken of is not the true Jehovah." And I'm trying very patiently to point out to you that the consequences of such a marriage are contrary to your beliefs, as best I can understand them.

Do you think that god is the union of all statements, including the explicitly contradictory ones; i.e., "god is good" and "god is evil" are both true? Or is god the negation of all statements, that is, neither "god is good" nor "god is evil" are true?

yguy

<jot, jot>

I don't see why. I believe it is hinted at by Jews who write His name as "G_d". I believe there is an implicit recgonition there of the tendency of the human mind to make the word the reality it represents.

I don't see how either of those could be true. God is good, but that is essentially tautological, as useful to one who knows there is a God as the fact that one should drive on the right-hand side of the road is to an experience driver. That is, it is so much a part of mathematics that it is almost forgotten, though it is a necessary truth. It won't help you know God any more than knowing which side of the road to drive on will, of itself, get you from one end of LA to the other.

Wyz_sub10

Well, I couldn't possibly agree more with this statement.

Nowhere357

I, too, think the christian mythological god and the ipu are both unlikely.