Why is God mysterious?

[Smidlee]

Maybe God is mysterious because He is HUGE. I mean bigger than the universe huge. Trying to fit God into our mind would be like trying to fit our minds into our computers. From what I've read our brains have more "switches" than all the computers including internet combine in the world.
If ants had the internet I'm sure they would be typing back to each other of why man is so mysterious.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, I find it to be a legitimate defense

Even though the chances of actually being able to observe the weather patterns in a video are not guaranteed, and even if they are, what are you going to be able to tell other than "It's sunny" or "It's raining"?

Verifying a video by observing weather patterns is just silly. It is nowhere near accurate enough to get a valid positive.

 

[single eye]

Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive if we separate what was revealed to the saints in the scripture they produced from the inconsistant opinions of everyone else. GOD does not create universes and tempt people with fruit trees, nor does He kill enormous amounts of people and animals with floods. We are lost because we cannot remember what we came here to accomplish and the information we need in order to remember was excluded from the bible. That is why few will find it.

 

[CryOfALion]

That´s a mystery.

This.

God is paradoxical. He is not really a mystery at all when you think about it. But, then He is very much so also a mystery.

Asking the question would put you on a constant loop where the answer becomes the question and so on.

"Why is God mysterious?"

"That is a mystery."

"Why is it a mystery?"

"Because, God is mysterious."

(Repeat iteration.)

 

[Resha Caner]

Your analogy fails because science has an epistemology and a history of results, while theology does not.

I read your statement the first time. Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. And it's not polite to clip my request to avoid answering it. I'll ask again: Assuming for a moment I could prove the statements true (I'm not saying I have), are they worded appropriately such that if they were true they would be equivalent?

In as far as I am 'mixing' philosophy and theology, I'm asking you to provide an epistemological foundation for theological assertions.

That is as rudimentary and foundational a request as it is possible to make of an area of discourse - how does it work? How is 'theological' information gleaned?

I understand what you're asking for. You want me to reply with something like Platinga's Reformed epistemology: Reformed epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Or maybe some kind of Scholastic Thomism: Thomism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I'm not saying the Confessional Lutheran position is easy to grasp (at least not from an intellectual, philosophical perspective). There are likely some issues of incommensurability in play here. But I gave you my answer as simply as I could. From there it's not a matter of reading dissertations, but of experiencing God. However, you could check out David Scaer - probably the greatest living Lutheran theologian. Start with something like:

Baptism as Church Foundation by David Scaer
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/scaerpbaptismchurchfoundation.pdf

No, that is the naked assertion of theology, and indeed, its only reason for existing.

No, it's a question that's been answered. I have a feeling you applied a lot of religious baggage to your interpretation of the phrase "God exists" without understanding what a Lutheran means by it.

Further, you've not really explained what you mean when you say no theistic epistemology works. Works for whom? What's your criteria here? Is it that everyone has to accept it? That doesn't work even for science. Is it that you have to accept it? That would be a bit arrogant ... almost a claim of godship in and of itself.

 

[Deidre32]

The universe is mysterious...even if one no longer believes in a deity, or never did...the universe is still quite mysterious. Thus, man views a god in the same light? That's my take.

 

[ananda]

Even though the chances of actually being able to observe the weather patterns in a video are not guaranteed, and even if they are, what are you going to be able to tell other than "It's sunny" or "It's raining"?

Verifying a video by observing weather patterns is just silly. It is nowhere near accurate enough to get a valid positive.

I'm not saying it would be definitive evidence ... I merely think that it would go a long way towards establishing the truth, in my eyes at least.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not saying it would be definitive evidence ... I merely think that it would go a long way towards establishing the truth, in my eyes at least.

Yes. an source which can be either faked or not show the information you want is quite convincing...

 

[ananda]

Yes. an source which can be either faked or not show the information you want is quite convincing...

I disagree.

 

[ananda]

Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive if we separate what was revealed to the saints in the scripture they produced from the inconsistant opinions of everyone else. GOD does not create universes and tempt people with fruit trees, nor does He kill enormous amounts of people and animals with floods. We are lost because we cannot remember what we came here to accomplish and the information we need in order to remember was excluded from the bible. That is why few will find it.

Where is the information we need, then?

 

[Chesterton]

Where is the information we need, then?

It's just beyond the Great Ice Wall.

 

[ananda]

It's just beyond the Great Ice Wall.

Perhaps so.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The known Universe has many 'mysterious' things. Some things we can observe and note, and are still mysterious.

Like why is a photon measured by one standard a 'wave function' and measured another way a 'particle'? That's a little mysterious in my book.

We know general relativity works rather well in determining how the macro Universe works. We know quantum mechanics works rather well in determining how the micro Universe works. However, we (humans) cannot make them work together. That's 'odd' if not mysterious. Mysterious for me, anyway.

Many other things are difficult - so far impossible - to figure. What happened in the first Planck time of the Universe? When radioactive material decays, how does it decide which nucleus splits next? Women buying shoes. How much wood could a woodchuck chuck?

With this in mind, how can it be simple to 'understand' the mind of the being that designed all of this? In fact, God has given us much information about His nature and what He expects from us. I think it's amazing how easy it is to understand Him at all.

 

[single eye]

Netzarim asks, "Where is the information we need, then?" First, saint John tells us that Jesus informed a group of Jews that their father is the devil in Jn. 8:44. Saint John elaborated on this subject in The Apocryphon of John. Fans of the universe creator in the o.t. do not like to hear this.

 

[Kylie]

I disagree.

Would you like to explain how a source can be convincing if it can be faked easily or doesn't show the required information to be convincing?

 

[ananda]

Would you like to explain how a source can be convincing if it can be faked easily or doesn't show the required information to be convincing?

I don't think that a truly live source can be faked easily.

 

[CryOfALion]

I don't think that a truly live source can be faked easily.

I'm glad you said "easily." That is important context.

 

[Kylie]

This.

God is paradoxical. He is not really a mystery at all when you think about it. But, then He is very much so also a mystery.

Asking the question would put you on a constant loop where the answer becomes the question and so on.

"Why is God mysterious?"

"That is a mystery."

"Why is it a mystery?"

"Because, God is mysterious."

(Repeat iteration.)

The trouble with paradoxes is that they can't exist in reality.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think that a truly live source can be faked easily.

Despite the fact that I showed you one of an android being assembled, found to have emotions she isn't meant to have, and then being disassembled before begging for her life?

Or do you think that video is proof that the events actually happened?

 

[ananda]

Despite the fact that I showed you one of an android being assembled, found to have emotions she isn't meant to have, and then being disassembled before begging for her life?

Or do you think that video is proof that the events actually happened?

I was referring to a live feed of a spherical earth, not of an android.