If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If we wish to discover the nature of the Christian God, the National Catholic Almanac offers us a
generous assortment of attributes from which to choose. According to this source, God is
“almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite,
invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent,
patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true.”

This is certainly an impressive list, but one problem immediately becomes apparent: included in
this catalogue of characteristics is “incomprehensible.” One must wonder how it is possible to
declare God’s incomprehensibility and simultaneously list twenty-two additional attributes.

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

It demonstrates that religion is nothing but language and labels. There isn't even a man behind the curtain.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"I find the almost unfathomable precision in atomic clocks to be part of the most exciting in physics with possibilities for the future: precise control of quantum systems."

Lawrence Klaus

Thanks for the quote Learner

*adjective*

Therefore God exists!

 

[ideologyhunter]

Joe Christian Meditates

God of Jainism? No, people from India made that up.
God of Sikhism? Same.
Gods of Hinduism? Same.
God of Islam? Arabs made him up.
Gods of the Norse and Teutons? Bunch of Vikings and Germans made them up.
Gods of the Native Americans? Bunch of tribal leaders made them up.
Gods of the Aztecs? Made up.
Gods of the Polynesians? Made up.
Gods of the Egyptians? Made up.
Australian Aboriginal gods? Made up.
Yoruba gods? Made up.
Gods of the Aztecs? You already said that. Made up.
Uh -- Hawaiian gods? Made up.
Gods of the Maya? Made up.
Gods of the Olmecs? Made up.
Gods of the Toltecs? You already -- no -- made up.
(One hour later.)
Gods of the Guarani? Made up.
Well, I think we're done here. Except, oh, here's one, Jehovah God.
As in Genesis?
Yes.
That one's real!! You hit pay dirt!! That's the god that wrote the Bible. Isn't it just plain weird how man made up all those other guys?

 

[Lion IRC]

Picture of blind men and elephant -->goes here<--

 

[abaddon]

Joe Christian: "But the elephant itself is Jehovah, the REAL ONE!"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

View attachment 29169

Joe Christian: "But the elephant itself is Jehovah, the REAL ONE!"

It's a female.

 

[skepticalbip]

View attachment 29169

Joe Christian: "But the elephant itself is Jehovah, the REAL ONE!"

In reality, it would be the Hindu who would say that all religions are describing aspects of Brahma. Hindus recognize all gods. Christians aren't shown in that cartoon... Christians would have to be one behind the elephant feeling the force of the elephant's fart and describing it as an invisible force in the universe.

However none these are any indication of gods, only a good illustration that people tend to invent explanations (gods) for things that they don't understand.

 

[DBT]

Picture of blind men and elephant -->goes here<--

Which is an illustration of the error of making guesses based on too little information. For example: we don't know how the universe came about, therefore God.

 

[Iznomneak]

View attachment 29169

Joe Christian: "But the elephant itself is Jehovah, the REAL ONE!"

In reality, it would be the Hindu who would say that all religions are describing aspects of Brahma. Hindus recognize all gods. Christians aren't shown in that cartoon... Christians would have to be one behind the elephant feeling the force of the elephant's fart and describing it as an invisible force in the universe.

However none these are any indication of gods, only a good illustration that people tend to invent explanations (gods) for things that they don't understand.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

View attachment 29169

Joe Christian: "But the elephant itself is Jehovah, the REAL ONE!"

In reality, it would be the Hindu who would say that all religions are describing aspects of Brahma. Hindus recognize all gods. Christians aren't shown in that cartoon... Christians would have to be one behind the elephant feeling the force of the elephant's fart and describing it as an invisible force in the universe.

However none these are any indication of gods, only a good illustration that people tend to invent explanations (gods) for things that they don't understand.

It's pretty safe to say that we are what we know. So what should we make of people who believe in god magic? You would think that these believers might be confused because they would ask themselves how it is that their god magic makes them able to love another person but also able to hate and even kill another person. From the standpoint of knowledge they must be completely unaware of the contradictions in their behavior. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

 

[Rhea]

Picture of blind men and elephant --><--

It’s interesting that you bring this up AGAIN, as if we didn’t already talk about this and determine that it is arrogant and unsupported for the Christian to claim that they, AND ONLY THEY, can see and know the whole elephant.

And here you are, bringing it up as if that refutation never occurred. I bet you’ll bring this up again in another two weeks. (Cue image of the cartoon and you with your dark glasses on, missing all the LOGIC and only touching your own feels)

But for the thoughtful and thinking and reasonable who are reading along, this apologetic just falls flat; Lion claims that everyone is wrong but him about the “elephant” that only he can see with his unique acumen.

In reality, it’s a unicorn, and it’s made up by all of them. All of them stroking and sniffing their own fears and weaknesses, and anthopomorphising a superhero savior that looks exactly like their own individual dream of a superhero, up to and including the fact that Lion’s Superhero is one that tells him he’s right and everyone else is (patronizingly) wrong.

Lion, that is not the argument you think it is. It wasn’t last time, either.

 

[Learner]

Just because knowing some things of something, doesn't automatically mean ... what we don't know, or are unsure about ..."should" also mean this to be "fathomable." We DON'T claim to know everything about God, and ...you'll find the same use of unfathomable elsewhere with some things that we do know of:

Hmmm. You’ll notice none of those people used it as a one word answer intended to stop discussion, the way you did. I mean, yoou literally posted just the one word as an argument.

"Stopping discussion." Not sure why you're saying that; it's not an argument although you think YOU have one. My previous post is stating a fact....

You should be more careful of what you are trying to claim. This is not new to me, as I said, so many Christians do it. They throw down some authoritarian-style phrase that they think is a mic-drop; and it is, for them. But for the rest of us, who ponder meaning with supporting dialogue, it lands with a thud that makes us go, “really? That’s your argument?”

...the fact that the USE of the word is NOT misplaced i.e. Theists (pondering in awe for example) don't claim to know everything about God!

So the rest of you are "pondering on meaning with supporting dialogue?"

 

[Learner]

Just because knowing some things of something, doesn't automatically mean ... what we don't know, or are unsure about ..."should" also mean this to be "fathomable." We DON'T claim to know everything about God, and ...you'll find the same use of unfathomable elsewhere with some things that we do know of:

Using a few excerpts from different articles...

Nobody in those quotes is talking about an indemonstrable entity. Their subjects are the universe, computing ability, atomic clocks. These are known to exist. God is not.

The things known to exist.. well yes and there is NO evidence that these things came about by themselves, a different debate you're making here which is NOT the point anyway.

You are trying to make the flawed argument,(perhaps not realising what you are really saying) by saying theists are unable or unqualified to use the word unfathomable...

You've done exactly what was predicted. Critics said the concept of God is so vague that theists will say anything about it. A theist (you) then says anything about it, but acts as if he's explaining and making things more clear.

Here's an example of the kind of problem I'm pointing at:

"Loch Ness monster moves in the darkest depths of the lake".
"It's not so deep that a monster can entirely hide though".
"Sometimes the monster goes into a cavern".
"Let's see the cavern then."
"The door of the cavern closes sometimes and you can't see it".

^This kind of shifting around is not description or explanation. Trying to complete the 'coherence of Nessyism' by piling on terms, is just more stories about a story.

You went through all that (whole post)... just to tell me 'unfathomable' is "beyond the ability" for theists to understand and to know when and how to use it! (Although you're really arguing something else, you didn't predict)

Atheists said: You can say whatever you please about an entity that's imaginary and magical and self-contradictory and supernatural.

You added "unfathomable".

Right. Theists will say whatever they want about an entity that people don't fully understand (including whether it even exists). You only helped to illustrate the point that the atheists had made.

Adding unfathomable. Theists like anyone else CAN use the word unfathomable in the correct context.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The things known to exist.. well yes and there is NO evidence that these things came about by themselves.

All their constituent parts are real. And there is no evidence that those constituent parts were ever created, or created by magic creatures, or have anything to do with magic creatures or magic.

Now alleged magic creatures themselves are a different matter. There is - as you say - NO evidence to believe they are real, but plenty of evidence to show that they "came about" via human imagination. Further, they have no constituent parts that can be "evidenced" such as can be done with atomic clocks and other such inventions.

In short, these magic creatures don't have anything in common with real things like atomic clocks, but this must be the argument for gods from atomic clocks.

 

[Learner]

That particular section that you quote is a different debate from the "unfathomable" one ...well spotted!

 

[abaddon]

The things known to exist.. well yes and there is NO evidence that these things came about by themselves, a different debate you're making here which is NOT the point anyway.

I'm not clear... just what exactly is your point?

Let's go back to the original context, about how "[theists] can say whatever [they] please about an entity that's dead, invisible, imaginary, magical, self-contradictory".

I'm paraphrasing ideologyhunter's post there. I added "supernatural" to his list, and then you added "unfathomable" to it. So your input added this information to the list: "[theists] can say whatever [they] please about an entity that's beyond knowing fully". If that is not what you meant to say, then you didn't have the correct context even at the very start.

You are trying to make the flawed argument,(perhaps not realising what you are really saying) by saying theists are unable or unqualified to use the word unfathomable...

No, and that's a bizarre reading of what I wrote.

In full realization of what I was really saying, I said that there's evasiveness in using the word. I illustrated the point with the Loch Ness monster dialogue. That was a skeptic and believer talking about an entity which has poor evidence for its existence. The skeptic was asking the believer for help in "fathoming" this creature so (if it exists) it can be known in better detail. However, the believer was giving reasons why that "fathoming" isn't going to happen.

Just like you.

A dialogue about God's existence needs to go the other direction from that. Point out what you DO know. Don't make excuses for why you don't.

You went through all that (whole post)... just to tell me 'unfathomable' is "beyond the ability" for theists to understand and to know when and how to use it! (Although you're really arguing something else, you didn't predict)

What? Yeah, I'm arguing something else than what you say I'm arguing...

In any case, why go on about the word? Why not discuss the ways that God is fathomable instead?

Adding unfathomable. Theists like anyone else CAN use the word unfathomable in the correct context.

Sure they can use the word, but I don't think you have the correct context. So let's review the context just once more...

First there was this post:

You can say whatever you please about an entity that's:
a) dead
b) invisible
c) imaginary
d) magical
e) self-contradictory

Then I added

f) supernatural

Then you added

G) Unfathomable

So the correct context was how easy it is to say what you want about God when he's so amorphous... No need for you to join in and pile on about that. Not if God's knowable, to any extent at all, as a real entity.

----------

That particular section that you quote is a different debate from the "unfathomable" one ...well spotted!

Seems the "different debate" would be more on-topic and more interesting. If you think so too, then maybe move over to it and stop explaining your use of the word (that just doesn't even need to be said again)?

 

[DrZoidberg]

When physicists say that quantum mechanics is unfathomable, they mean that there's nothing known we can use as a metaphor for us to emotionally understand it or relate to it. But the maths work. They can work it out. But they'll never get any emotional attachment to anything. It's like watching a sports game where you don't know the rules, and you don't understand what the sides are. It doesn't make sense. But you can still describe what is going on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Picture of blind men and elephant -->goes here<--

You mean the image of the people with blindfolds that are right next to an elephant and still have the senses of smell and touch and hearing. That they would still have a first person observation of the elephant (something that has been lacking for humans since Joseph Smith or Mohammad or Jesus or David depending on who you talk to). Then they could discuss with each other their observations and come to a singular conclusion because they are Human Beings and should be capable of rational thought?

Or is that image a representation of how stupid theists are because they are incapable of coming up with a consensus on the thing they all agree obviously exists?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Picture of blind men and elephant -->goes here<--

You mean the image of the people with blindfolds that are right next to an elephant and still have the senses of smell and touch and hearing. That they would still have a first person observation of the elephant (something that has been lacking for humans since Joseph Smith or Mohammad or Jesus or David depending on who you talk to). Then they could discuss with each other their observations and come to a singular conclusion because they are Human Beings and should be capable of rational thought?

Or is that image a representation of how stupid theists are because they are incapable of coming up with a consensus on the thing they all agree obviously exists?

I think it's intended to be clever and convincing, not informative. Religion abhors knowledge. Yes, I know that's what you were saying but felt it needed an exclamation.

To a religious person it probably appears highly intelligent. That of course is the problem, that a religious person cannot recognize anecdotal drivel.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Picture of blind men and elephant -->goes here<--

You mean the image of the people with blindfolds that are right next to an elephant and still have the senses of smell and touch and hearing. That they would still have a first person observation of the elephant (something that has been lacking for humans since Joseph Smith or Mohammad or Jesus or David depending on who you talk to). Then they could discuss with each other their observations and come to a singular conclusion because they are Human Beings and should be capable of rational thought?

Or is that image a representation of how stupid theists are because they are incapable of coming up with a consensus on the thing they all agree obviously exists?

I think it's intended to be clever and convincing, not informative. Religion abhors knowledge. Yes, I know that's what you were saying but felt it needed an exclamation.

To a religious person it probably appears highly intelligent. That of course is the problem, that a religious person cannot recognize anecdotal drivel.

To expose things a bit more, in the god anecdote for the elephant... who put the blindfold on the people?