Richard Dawkins

[wendigo100]

Infinity is a proven concept, it can be proven scientificaly/mathematicaly through logical progression.
God or the concept of god can not be proven by any scientific/mathematical means available to us
and simple logical progression would indicate that the concept of god will never be proven. unless god demonstrates his own existence, something that he has so far failed to do.
and don't quote the bible, it is unproven documentation based on faith (Spit)
and the writings of zealots whe lived hundreds of years after the events that they document with such conviction.

Ah, but that was not your original argument:

"To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent...The belief in the existence of a supreme being is just as incoherent and idiotic as believing in the existence of a supreme number."

Your definition of a supreme number (which you call "self-contradictory") has no conceptual difference to that of infinity ("proven scientificaly/mathematicaly through logical progression").

I don't quote the bible, yet the whole premise for your argument is that "traditional theism defines God as a supreme being". What is your source for that, the bible? The Koran? Define supreme - supreme to us perhaps, but does that necessarily mean perfect?

[Diver]

If "God" is the creator, and God created Earth and the Heavens then by the same logical progression I would assume God would be the supreme being because God created all else.
In the bible doesn't God say somewhere "You shall worship none other" or some such thing.
But! then again, by logical progression that very statetement would indicate that there were others that could be worshipped!

I am Getting very confused here

[wendigo100]

If "God" is the creator, and God created Earth and the Heavens then by the same logical progression I would assume God would be the supreme being because God created all else.
In the bible doesn't God say somewhere "You shall worship none other" or some such thing.
But! then again, by logical progression that very statetement would indicate that there were others that could be worshipped!

I am Getting very confused here

I am always confused!

[Diver]

I am always confused!

I've been in a thread war with Troll for two days.

I think I may have Post Traumatic Stress

[wendigo100]

I've been in a thread war with Troll for two days.

I think I may have Post Traumatic Stress

I thought you were busy the other night!

[Diver]

I thought you were busy the other night!

I have an advantage, I'm an insomniac. I only sleep 3 to 4 hours a night.

[IR35 Avoider]

We can presume there is reality outside of human experience, and it's that that our current state of knowledge is a model of, and we could call that reality God if we want to give it a name, but we cannot know or say anything about it, because by definition it is outside of what we know or can know. If we say X exists but cannot even in principle say or know anything else about it, is it a concept worth worrying about, other than as a place-holder for what we don't know?:

But do you honestly believe that this is a viable concept on which to base a complete regime of belief, and zealous adherence to the doctrines dictated by this belief?

Not quite sure if I've got you; you seem to think I'm saying the exact opposite of what I intended. I say if you define God in terms of the reality that is outside human knowledge (outside in principle, not just because we our knowledge hasn't got there yet) then there is nothing you can say about him, and therefore any belief system built around the concept of him can only be pure invention. In other words, no fact or practise or belief of a religion that worships this "God" has any connection with him what whatsoever.

Are you saying that rejecting all alleged facts, practises and beliefs that must in principle be invented (but only if we define "God" in this particular way) is itself a whole belief system? I see it more as an incidental consequence of my view of what is knowable.

Of course the religious do not have to define God in this way, my original point was just to argue that the religious cannot defend the concept of "God" by locating him outside of human knowledge. If that's where he exists, then no-one knows anything about him and you cannot connect him to any human religion. Since a religion cannot practically claim to have no beliefs about its God, it follows that any religion must in fact presume that he (or aspects of him) are within the realm of human knowledge, and that means he does have to measure up to whatever standards we choose to apply to judge the acceptability of beliefs.

[Chico]

Not quite sure if I've got you; you seem to think I'm saying the exact opposite of what I intended. I say if you define God in terms of the reality that is outside human knowledge (outside in principle, not just because we our knowledge hasn't got there yet) then there is nothing you can say about him, and therefore any belief system built around the concept of him can only be pure invention. In other words, no fact or practise or belief of a religion that worships this "God" has any connection with him what whatsoever.

Are you saying that rejecting all alleged facts, practises and beliefs that must in principle be invented (but only if we define "God" in this particular way) is itself a whole belief system? I see it more as an incidental consequence of my view of what is knowable.

Of course the religious do not have to define God in this way, my original point was just to argue that the religious cannot defend the concept of "God" by locating him outside of human knowledge. If that's where he exists, then no-one knows anything about him and you cannot connect him to any human religion. Since a religion cannot practically claim to have no beliefs about its God, it follows that any religion must in fact presume that he (or aspects of him) are within the realm of human knowledge, and that means he does have to measure up to whatever standards we choose to apply to judge the acceptability of beliefs.

You miss one possibility, God who lives outside human knowledge decides to make himself known. He comes down to our reality. Thats the Christian message. Not what man does to get to God but what God did to to get to man. I quote CS Lewis.....

C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity' page 56
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a good moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great moral teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

[Old Greg]

You miss one possibility, God who lives outside human knowledge decides to make himself known. He comes down to our reality. Thats the Christian message. Not what man does to get to God but what God did to to get to man. I quote CS Lewis.....

C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity' page 56
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a good moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great moral teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

But a central part of the Christian message is that God has always existed inside human knowledge. God created Adam and Eve (we are told) and they knew him (not in that way), and God revealed himself to Noah, the patriarchs, prophets, inspired the Old Testament. So what's this God existing outside human knowledge?

[sasguru]

I see you've met Chico. Enjoy ....