How do I know I've learned anything about 'God'?

[FutileRhetoric]

I've read Bible front to back after reading How to Read the Bible For All Its' Worth, Muhammed, A Prophet For Our Time, and summary's of God in the Koran, but I don't know that I know anything about God. Tell me if you agree, I think there is rational conclusion we can make about God. God defined as a omnipotent entity that is 'out there,' the only meaniingful definition of God, imo.

1) God, defined as omnipotent, includes the qualities of omniscience, all-loving, etc. Because omnipotence requires God to be all powerful, God is also not all powerful at the same time.So, a logical response to the Burrito argument (Could God microwave a burrito so hot he himself can't eat it?) is both yes and no because God is a logical paradox. God is simultaneously both bound and unbound and the question is meaningless, right?

My questions are:
If humans cannot know God intellectually, then any attempt to do so is futile, right? The alternative, religious or spiritual experience, is equally as futile because humans lack the espistemology of knowing about the supernatural?

And if this is all true, it begs me to ask what the point of engaging in any theological debate is for atheists if they are science based and know God cannot be known by humans right now. What is the point of seeking that which cannot be known intellectally or spiritually?

 

[ArchaicTruth]

After reading a few of your posts, I now designate you and I -iestic opposites of each other. Welcome to Christian Forums.

I've read Bible front to back after reading How to Read the Bible For All Its' Worth, Muhammed, A Prophet For Our Time, and summary's of God in the Koran, but I don't know that I know anything about God. Tell me if you agree, I think there is rational conclusion we can make about God. God defined as a omnipotent entity that is 'out there,' the only meaniingful definition of God, imo.

I only wish I had access to such a wide range of wonderful books. The only two requirements for God are omniscience and omnipotence, for all we know God could in fact be a malevolent mother fer. The nature of his existence has a million possibilities.

1) God, defined as omnipotent, includes the qualities of omniscience, all-loving, etc. Because omnipotence requires God to be all powerful, God is also not all powerful at the same time.So, a logical response to the Burrito argument (Could God microwave a burrito so hot he himself can't eat it?) is both yes and no because God is a logical paradox. God is simultaneously both bound and unbound and the question is meaningless, right?

This particular "question" is quite annoying, as you'll see... Well, first off eventually the burrito would crisp and burn into nothingness, but replace the burrito with something that won't do that and give God the ability to eat and we come less into a paradox and more into the matter known as infinite. God of course would have the ability to heat it indefinitely, but there must be a peak temperature that can be reached, or there must be some point where the substance would vaporize, so all in all this is a poor way to go at it. If you've got a better question that you can substitute in (realizing that to try to use a question revolving around things that abide by the laws of our existence and then putting God into the equation either means that God must abide by the rules as we do or break them entirely) then go for it and I'll see what I can do about it.

My questions are:
If humans cannot know God intellectually, then any attempt to do so is futile, right? The alternative, religious or spiritual experience, is equally as futile because humans lack the espistemology of knowing about the supernatural?

It's a bit to early to rule out science proving God. Perhaps it is impossible for science to understand the giant wall that is God, but not impossible to see the wall. I mean, it is a pretty big wall after all...

I'm too young and haven't seen enough of the world to attack or defend religious or spiritual experience, but most of it (not all of it) seems like a load of hoo-ha to me.

And if this is all true, it begs me to ask what the point of engaging in any theological debate is for atheists if they are science based and know God cannot be known by humans right now. What is the point of seeking that which cannot be known intellectally or spiritually?

That's a good question. For me, I just really, really, really, NEED to know.

 

[JoeV]

I find that the "burrito argument" kind of misdefines "omnipotence". God can do anything, but He cannot do the logically impossible. That is not omnipotence. Omnipotence is more like being able to do whatever one sets out to do, not being able to do the logically impossible. That, of course, is impossible. Hope that helps.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Thanks for the warm welcome, Archaic.

After reading a few of your posts, I now designate you and I -iestic opposites of each other. Welcome to Christian Forums.



I only wish I had access to such a wide range of wonderful books. The only two requirements for God are omniscience and omnipotence, for all we know God could in fact be a malevolent mother fer. The nature of his existence has a million possibilities.



This particular "question" is quite annoying, as you'll see... Well, first off eventually the burrito would crisp and burn into nothingness, but replace the burrito with something that won't do that and give God the ability to eat and we come less into a paradox and more into the matter known as infinite. God of course would have the ability to heat it indefinitely, but there must be a peak temperature that can be reached, or there must be some point where the substance would vaporize, so all in all this is a poor way to go at it. If you've got a better question that you can substitute in (realizing that to try to use a question revolving around things that abide by the laws of our existence and then putting God into the equation either means that God must abide by the rules as we do or break them entirely) then go for it and I'll see what I can do about it.

Keep in mind that since God is omnipotent, (omniscience is included in the omnipotent definition) his burrito will both not burn up and also burn up simultaneously because God is pesumed to exist beyond space and time and therefore his burrito is a supernatural paradox as well. So, the burrito isn't subject to natural laws that precede our existence; it is a GOD Burrito; equivalent to God. My aplogies for not mentioning that.

It's a bit to early to rule out science proving God. Perhaps it is impossible for science to understand the giant wall that is God, but not impossible to see the wall. I mean, it is a pretty big wall after all...

I agree that science can possibly know the metaphysical one day, but I think the conscensus is it's a long way off. Yeah, we shouldn't write it off definitively, but acknowledge that it's very unlikely we will ever find out in the cosmic blink of an eye that we are living, so to speak.

That's a good question. For me, I just really, really, really, NEED to know.

For sure; I find theology in general very interesting, but I am also an atheistic seeker and I have spent quite a lot of time, probably over hundred's of hours reading books and online articles about the God that is 'out there,' and I do feel it has been very productive, but now Ithink I may be at a sort of end point of knowledge. I too would like an answer, and also hope it confirms what I suspect so I stop spending my time on this. If I'm right; I have a million better things to do and if I'm wrong; perhaps this should be my first priority?

I find that the "burrito argument" kind of misdefines "omnipotence". God can do anything, but He cannot do the logically impossible. That is not omnipotence. Omnipotence is more like being able to do whatever one sets out to do, not being able to do the logically impossible. That, of course, is impossible. Hope that helps.

If God cannot do what humans define as logically impossible, then that certainly means that God is bound by something; human logic. Omnipotence means all powerful, having unlimited power. Since you say God is bound by logic then It is limited. Your idea is negated by the definition, I'm looking at the Princeton definition and others say the same thing. Do you have a problem with those definitions?

 

[daniel777]

welcome from me to.

Keep in mind that since God is omnipotent, (omniscience is included in the omnipotent definition) his burrito will both not burn up and also burn up simultaneously because God is pesumed to exist beyond space and time and therefore his burrito is a supernatural paradox as well. So, the burrito isn't subject to natural laws that precede our existence; it is a GOD Burrito; equivalent to God. My aplogies for not mentioning that.

well the ....God Burrito.....LOL .... anyway, the God Burrito argument is flawed because it pits God's omnipotence against itself. but the phrase sounds so funny, i think we should continue with it anyway....God Burrito. hahahahahaha . i'm going to make that my new sig. you guys are amazing.

For sure; I find theology in general very interesting, but I am also an atheistic seeker and I have spent quite a lot of time, probably over hundred's of hours reading books and online articles about the God that is 'out there,' and I do feel it has been very productive, but now Ithink I may be at a sort of end point of knowledge. I too would like an answer, and also hope it confirms what I suspect so I stop spending my time on this. If I'm right; I have a million better things to do and if I'm wrong; perhaps this should be my first priority?

you could try to explore other facets. what is beauty, die for a complete stranger type love, relationship, meaning in general.

all of these things when analyzed seem completely unreasonable, but somehow they remain to be the most reasonable. why?

try seeking him with not only your mind but with your body, heart, and soul as well.

If God cannot do what humans define as logically impossible, then that certainly means that God is bound by something; human logic. Omnipotence means all powerful, having unlimited power. Since you say God is bound by logic then It is limited. Your idea is negated by the definition, I'm looking at the Princeton definition and others say the same thing. Do you have a problem with those definitions?

not limited by human reason, limited by choice and desire. God could create the immovable rock....or burrito.... but then he'd move it..... it's the definition of omnipotence. God isn't going to contradict himself, in a sense that's one reason why he died. and in another, that's one reason why the tomb is now empty.


this must be the teen philosophy room... IT'S GENIUS!!!! NEXT THE TURKEY CHEESE GODICE FROM THE ABBYS ARGUMENT. LOL

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Thanks. Sometimes those things just slip out.

welcome from me to.



well the ....God Burrito.....LOL .... anyway, the God Burrito argument is flawed because it pits God's omnipotence against itself. but the phrase sounds so funny, i think we should continue with it anyway....God Burrito. hahahahahaha . i'm going to make that my new sig. you guys are amazing.




you could try to explore other facets. what is beauty, die for a complete stranger type love, relationship, meaning in general.

all of these things when analyzed seem completely unreasonable, but somehow they remain to be the most reasonable. why?

try seeking him with not only your mind but with your body, heart, and soul as well.

Good reccomendations. About seeking with soul/heart; the same illogic that plauges intellectual attempts applies to this as well: I cannot intellectually know if my spiritual experience of 'God' is really God.

not limited by human reason, limited by choice and desire.

You're using logic here; you utilise logic to limit God to things such as choice. This is as much as you can comprehend, but God is above any limit you can place on It.

God could create the immovable rock....or burrito.... but then he'd move it..... it's the definition of omnipotence. God isn't going to contradict himself, in a sense that's one reason why he died. and in another, that's one reason why the tomb is now empty.

Omnipotence is the contradiction and you've demonstataed that with this statement: " God could create the immovable rock....or burrito.... but then he'd move it." God can do what we call impossible. Moving an immovable rock is impossible to logic, but not where God is. God is omnipotent therefore is a paradox.


One serious question: I'm new here and I realised that I posted my two topics (this and the agnostic one) in this subforum in the 'Mission' section which is for Christian's. Who can I contact to move my topics to the correct section?

 

[daniel777]

One serious question: I'm new here and I realised that I posted my two topics (this and the agnostic one) in this subforum in the 'Mission' section which is for Christian's. Who can I contact to move my topics to the correct section?

just post in the forum that you would like it to be moved.

You're using logic here; you utilise logic to limit God to things such as choice. This is as much as you can comprehend, but God is above any limit you can place on It.

i was referring to God's choice. God is not above or below himself, God is himself.

also God would not contradict himself. he hasn't made that choice yet, that we know of....

and with the rock thing. if God is the source of all reason, and he does something unreasonable, does that make it reasonable....... perhaps we see it as unreasonable because he would never choose to contradict himself. maybe this is another way of him communicating that truth to us...... even to death on a cross. (yes i try to drag everything back to an empty tomb, get used to it. )

 

[ArchaicTruth]

By making that burrito a Divine Burrito, that means that we are taking this matter out of our existence and logical jurisdiction entirely, to a place where temperatures, burns and food may not even exist, a place that possesses it's own set of rules most likely entirely separate from our own, and therefore making it impossible for us to answer with anything but fantasy, ensuring that a once silly question, is now worthless. It's still fun to ask though... But to reiterate this all, the contradiction is created when you use the lens of our world to try and look at God. If he created an immovable rock in our universe, then none could move it because the rule of our universe states that the rock is immovable. God is however above our universe, existence and laws, and can therefore break the rule. Another simpler example, is to ask if God could perhaps create another of himself, which is both possible and impossible. Since God is infinite, if he created another of himself, which is to say, another infinite, infinite + infinite is still infinite, so in essence, nothing has happened. By making the rock immovable or the burrito divine, you are giving them the property of infinite, but to be infinite in such a manner and bound by our laws creates problems, because being infinite means they are a part of the infinite of God. Which leads me to conclude that other objects must be a part of God as well, in essence meaning that everything is a part of God, and thus eliminating the paradox unless you give God some kind of substance (i.e. our universe) and the laws that apply to that substance. Damn, I just realized I went in a circle and landed in square one. Oh well, I typed too much to want to delete it, so I'll leave it there for what it's worth. Excuse me if no sense can be made of it...

Spiritual experience is still something I'm iffy about. There's the kind known as physical miracles, like when a statue of the Virgin Mary sheds tears, which I've heard about. Stuff like that I find incredibly hard to believe, mostly because if it were true I think I'd be seeing a few less atheists around. Then there are the personal miracles that include physical extacy(sp?), which I believe to be a load of total bs, as I don't put any stock in pleasure. Then the third kind, the most spiritual of the three which affect persons in a profound way. These are the ones I believe may be authentic because they are derived from great epiphanies or awesome understanding. And since I believe the most holy of all God's attributes is that he is all understanding, I believe that to understand is to become closer to God.

 

[quatona]

I find that the "burrito argument" kind of misdefines "omnipotence". God can do anything, but He cannot do the logically impossible. That is not omnipotence. Omnipotence is more like being able to do whatever one sets out to do, not being able to do the logically impossible. That, of course, is impossible. Hope that helps.

I agree. The "burrito argument" creates is a fake paradox.
Therefore it is not to be used, unless the person opposite has previously postulated that god is beyond logic. In which case, though, we could assume each and every nonsense about this god, anyways.

 

[daniel777]

I SEE YOU QUATONA. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE GOD BURITO. SO FAR IT'S BEEN JUST US TEENAGERS. ..... so whatcha think?

 

[FutileRhetoric]

By making that burrito a Divine Burrito, that means that we are taking this matter out of our existence and logical jurisdiction entirely, to a place where temperatures, burns and food may not even exist, a place that possesses it's own set of rules most likely entirely separate from our own, and therefore making it impossible for us to answer with anything but fantasy, ensuring that a once silly question, is now worthless.

Thank you! From a naturalistic view, if the question of omnipotence is meaningless, then so is God.

It's still fun to ask though...

Indeed.

But to reiterate this all, the contradiction is created when you use the lens of our world to try and look at God.

Right, perceptions as defined imply subjectivity. We would need another lens as you say, but then again that different perception would still be ours and still subjective.

Spiritual experience is still something I'm iffy about. There's the kind known as physical miracles, like when a statue of the Virgin Mary sheds tears, which I've heard about. Stuff like that I find incredibly hard to believe, mostly because if it were true I think I'd be seeing a few less atheists around. Then there are the personal miracles that include physical extacy(sp?), which I believe to be a load of total bs, as I don't put any stock in pleasure. Then the third kind, the most spiritual of the three which affect persons in a profound way. These are the ones I believe may be authentic because they are derived from great epiphanies or awesome understanding. And since I believe the most hole of all God's attributes is that he is all understanding, I believe that to understand is to become closer to God.

It's all rhetoric to me.

 

[quatona]

I SEE YOU QUATONA. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE GOD BURITO. SO FAR IT'S BEEN JUST US TEENAGERS. ..... so whatcha think?

I can read your wishes.

 

[TexasSky]

I've read Bible front to back after reading How to Read the Bible For All Its' Worth, Muhammed, A Prophet For Our Time, and summary's of God in the Koran, but I don't know that I know anything about God. Tell me if you agree, I think there is rational conclusion we can make about God. God defined as a omnipotent entity that is 'out there,' the only meaniingful definition of God, imo.

1) God, defined as omnipotent, includes the qualities of omniscience, all-loving, etc. Because omnipotence requires God to be all powerful, God is also not all powerful at the same time.So, a logical response to the Burrito argument (Could God microwave a burrito so hot he himself can't eat it?) is both yes and no because God is a logical paradox. God is simultaneously both bound and unbound and the question is meaningless, right?

My questions are:
If humans cannot know God intellectually, then any attempt to do so is futile, right? The alternative, religious or spiritual experience, is equally as futile because humans lack the espistemology of knowing about the supernatural?

And if this is all true, it begs me to ask what the point of engaging in any theological debate is for atheists if they are science based and know God cannot be known by humans right now. What is the point of seeking that which cannot be known intellectally or spiritually?

Excuse me, but can we back up a little.

God is omniscient. For those who aren't into vocabulary, that means "all knowing". It is often used to describe "narrators". They "know the whole story."

God is omnipotent. That means "all powerful." The Almighty. The ultimate authority.

No arguement with that. It is accurate.

Then you say, "omnipotence requires God to be all powerful, God is also not all powerful at the same time."

Where do you conclude that God is not all powerful "at the same time"? The same time as what? All powerful when He is omnipotent? The word MEANS all powerful?

And you appear to equate all knowing to all loving.

The bible does not say God is "all loving". It does say that love is one of the qualities of God. His other qualities are just, devine, holy.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Excuse me, but can we back up a little.

God is omniscient. For those who aren't into vocabulary, that means "all knowing". It is often used to describe "narrators". They "know the whole story."

God is omnipotent. That means "all powerful." The Almighty. The ultimate authority.

No arguement with that. It is accurate.

You could bne right, but I disagree. The definition omnipotence is defined as unlimited power. It includes omniscience because clearly it follows that an all powerful entity would also be all knowing. If an entity is said to possess unlimited power, but does not know everything, then it is in fact not all powerful. The term is all inclusive of its other qualities.

Then you say, "omnipotence requires God to be all powerful, God is also not all powerful at the same time."

Where do you conclude that God is not all powerful "at the same time"? The same time as what? All powerful when He is omnipotent? The word MEANS all powerful?

Again I refer to the concept of unlimited power; if God is all powerful, then he has the power to make himself not all powerful. That is what it means when it is said that God is everything.

And you appear to equate all knowing to all loving.

The bible does not say God is "all loving". It does say that love is one of the qualities of God. His other qualities are just, devine, holy.

Correct about Bible not saying anything, however see my above statements.

 

[TexasSky]

Well, not to get into too much semantically here.

All powerful would require unlimited power, but the official definition of the world omnipotent is not "unlimited" it is "all power". The full authority.

Now, I will agree that God is both the full authority and all powerful.

As to the idea that because God is all powerful He has the ability to deny Himself power, that's rather irrelevant, and utterly pointless.

A king's ability to abdicate a throne does not automatically make the king anything less than a king.

Are you trying to suggest that sometime in the history of God, He has decided to stop being God? That He has announced He no longer wishes to be the final authority of all creation?

If that is what you are suggesting, what do you base that premise on?

You're doing a lot of circular thinking here, and that can be fun. "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound?" "I think, therefore I am, would mean that if I cannot think I cannot exist." That's all fun, but it really is nonsense.

It is an old George Carlin joke. "If God is all powerful can He make a rock so big that even He can't lift it?"

Its silliness that serves no purpose at all, and has no meaning over all.

That said, as the King of Kings, the final authority, the all powerful, the only one who COULD remove God from the throne of Heaven is God. I haven't heard any rumors of His retirement though.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Well, not to get into too much semantically here.

All powerful would require unlimited power, but the official definition of the world omnipotent is not "unlimited" it is "all power". The full authority.

If you define 'all' as synonymous with 'everything' as the word is usually used, then it's the same thing.

Now, I will agree that God is both the full authority and all powerful.

As to the idea that because God is all powerful He has the ability to deny Himself power, that's rather irrelevant, and utterly pointless.

Plenty of theists will disagree with you that it is irrelevant; see panendeists. Essentially what you perceive about God, Its qualities and traits are subjective as far as we know unless you can prove them. Of course you cannot, so your opinion does not make a fact so please refrain from stating in such a manner.

Are you trying to suggest that sometime in the history of God, He has decided to stop being God? That He has announced He no longer wishes to be the final authority of all creation?

Some forms of deistic and theistic philosophies entertain this not, but it's not what I'm putting on the table at all.

You're doing a lot of circular thinking here, and that can be fun. "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound?" "I think, therefore I am, would mean that if I cannot think I cannot exist." That's all fun, but it really is nonsense.

It is an old George Carlin joke. "If God is all powerful can He make a rock so big that even He can't lift it?"

Its silliness that serves no purpose at all, and has no meaning over all.

And you the same; I have yet to encounter to lengthy discussion about God that didnot involve circular reasoning. I refer to my previous statements about your useage of "meaningless". It is useless to you, but not to everyone. It is useful to me for other reasons it is to a deist, it highlights the paradox of omnipotence/God and I too believe it is meaningless.

That said, as the King of Kings, the final authority, the all powerful, the only one who COULD remove God from the throne of Heaven is God. I haven't heard any rumors of His retirement though.

You can't prove you've heard anything about God.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

The nature of infinite has always been one of my favorite subjects, especially when it comes to God. If God were to deny himself power, the only way to do so would be to ultimately obliterate himself. Since his power is infinite, if he were to take a chunk away, then his power would still be infinite, so the only way to take power away would be to take all of it, and subtract infinite from infinite. This is of course, under the assumption that even God follows his own rules.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

The nature of infinite has always been one of my favorite subjects, especially when it comes to God. If God were to deny himself power, the only way to do so would be to ultimately obliterate himself. Since his power is infinite, if he were to take a chunk away, then his power would still be infinite, so the only way to take power away would be to take all of it, and subtract infinite from infinite. This is of course, under the assumption that even God follows his own rules.

As I operate with the key premise/assumption that God is all powerful, I conclude that if God were to completely deny himself of power, he could do so any which way he pleases -- by obliterating himself or not.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

As I operate with the key premise/assumption that God is all powerful, I conclude that if God were to completely deny himself of power, he could do so any which way he pleases -- by obliterating himself or not.

Never assume, assumptions are bad...

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Never assume, assumptions are bad...

I know...isn't it just annoying when people do that....