The idea of God seems totally inconceivable...

[Freodin]

That's true. So what's the alternate interpretation?

Passing into a different world, for example.
An inconceivable idea? Or just an extrapolation of our human experience with changed states of consciousness?

But the thread's topic is about the existence of a God. As the OP put it, "evidence of God's existence. To many people God seems inconceivable, if God is inconceivable, then we likely didn't make him up."

The question doesn't not necessarily take in everything else that people have associated with God (life eternal, answering prayer, etc.).

So then what is "a God"? Is the idea that a dancing around a fire in order to appease the spirits of the animals you are going to hunt already "a God"... and an inconceivable idea? The idea of a chieftain bigger than your own chieftain?

What about God is "inconceivable", so that "we likely didn't make him up"?

 

[quatona]

A unicorn is just a horse with a horn extending from it's forehead. Horses exist, horned animals exist, so why should it be difficult to imagine a horse with a horn? The same applies to griffins. Lions exist, Eagles exist, so it isn't as if the griffin is based on concepts we don't understand or see.

On the other hand, the attributes of god do not exist in our world and have never been seen.

The problem:
These attributes are either extrapolations from what we are familiar with or mere ex-negativo claims of that which we have seen.
They tell us
- that God is like us, but more of that which we like about ourselves, or
- what God is not.
Terms like "supernatural" don´t even point to a concept.

 

[Albion]

Passing into a different world, for example.

Why would you assume this? That's what you're doing at the same time as you don't think it's a good idea to assume that these artifacts indicate a much more likely explanation, the belief in some higher being.

 

[Freodin]

Why would you assume this? That's what you're doing at the same time as you don't think it's a good idea to assume that these artifacts indicate a much more likely explanation, the belief in some higher being.

I don't assume that. I present it as a possible explanation. Just as "belief in some higher being" is a possible explanation. Or as something completely secular is a possible explanation.

As I said before: the existing relics are not enough to give a precise interpretation... and they definitly do nothing to say if the belief in some higher being is "a much more likely explanation".

All in all, they are a potential indicator - and nothing more! - that the Neanderthal humans did something special with dead people.
You bring that into relation with "a higher being". This isn't indicated, nor is it necessary. It is only possible, but we do not know.


But that isn't they point at all. The point that the OP made was that such an idea is "inconceivable"... and I explained why I don't think so.

 

[EvietheTurtle]

It is a journey to true believe which when you begin it can seem as if you are going in the dark ,just hoping .But by continuing ,hoping, and learning more about God ,being honest in talking to Him in the Hope He hears sometimes feeling idiotic ,but still continuing the proof comes and little miracles happen over time . Atheists close the shutters ,stay in the basement, and wonder why there is no Light .When you have been in darkness for so long ,it becomes 'normal',but you will never be anything 'down there , and the end will come and you will be dead never having the possiblity to be truly
alive . It seems some Christians are a problem as they forget to stop being afraid and think only of live after death ,but for a saved person, life is before and after death .

I really appreciate your response. In my case it's that I don't have the incentive to go through all that trouble hoping, probably because I've never believed in the first place. I could understand if I'd lost my faith in the past and was "hoping" to get it back....and then that led to a rekindling of my belief - but in my case I'm 27 years old and I've always been an atheist and never found the idea of a God or Jesus being our savior convincing, so why would I go through all that trouble hoping in the darkness to allow myself to start believing fully, when I'm content that belief in God isn't required to live a good ethical life while I'm here on this planet, and I see no reason to believe there is an afterlife to live for either?

 

[EvietheTurtle]

John 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you." 27* Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." 28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29* Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

Thumpalumpacus[...]Are You Experienced?[...]

John 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you." 27* Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." 28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29* Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

Yeah, good choice of quote. That definitely seems to be the point that Immanuel Kant was emphasizing, and he argued against Thomas Aquinas's "proofs". So I take it you're on Kant's side of the debate?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I was talking to a teacher from a Islamic background, and he said people may not be able to conceive of stuf like "outside of space and time" but yet thet still have an intuitive grasp. Thats the best apologetic I have heard.

 

[Freodin]

I was talking to a teacher from a Islamic background, and he said people may not be able to conceive of stuf like "outside of space and time" but yet thet still have an intuitive grasp. Thats the best apologetic I have heard.

But how do you distinguish an "intuitive grasp" from a "misconceived notion"?

 

[stevenfrancis]

See my response................accidentally posted as a "Quote" below.

Happy Thanksgiving!!!!!

 

[stevenfrancis]

Ah....found a way to remove the "quote"

I'm on the side of the debate that helps fellow human beings give themselves over to belief and faith. All people are different. Many are Thomas's, and need an Aquinas to get the ball rolling. Many are John's, and "get" the divinity of Jesus without proof or intellectual exercise. It is a gift either way. God allows for workers in the field of many different talents, with the same purpose. Kant and Aquinas, and St. John are all correct in the method they use for the audience they are here for. If it results in faith, that is the goal. If there was any faith that was superior in any way, it would be the childlike faith which Christ implied was intrinsic in children who are not prevented from coming to Him. So it would follow that "bad" theological philosophy would be those philosophies which put up stumbling blocks to faith. That in the wrong hands might diminish or take away the inherent childlike wonder of faith in Christ.

 

[Neochristian]

They say God is a spirit, like the Christmas Spirit.