"God is greater than reason"

[McBell]

If you're attempting to empty the glass then "half empty" is the optimistic perspective.

Well, I did tell the jerk that I am not a pessimist who sees the glass half empty.
Nor am I an optimist who sees the glass half full.
I am a realist who realizes that if I hang around to long, I will be the one who has to wash the glass.

 

[Luminous]

On a different tack - I see no reason at all to presume that any truth - if such a beast exists - would fit with logic. Do you?

As has been stated, there is no point to presume truths(axioms) without logic, and there is no point to use logic without axioms. If anything you are arguing for Agnosticism(not theism) which is the one and only ultimate logical truth.

 

[Luminous]

A god that is greater than reason, is a god without reason. Without reason than only chaos and irrationality exist.

Which is not beyond the realm of possibility and believe, as Discordianism already exists.

 

[Luminous]

Where do you draw the line?
A Creator that cannot reason?
The universe seems to be well built.
But chaos functions within it.
Chaos is controlled.

Or perhaps you are seeking a line you can make and God will conform to it?
Who is greater...you or the Creator?

What is being created here? existance? or your thoughts on existance?

 

[McBell]

Where do you draw the line?
A Creator that cannot reason?
The universe seems to be well built.
But chaos functions within it.
Chaos is controlled.

Or perhaps you are seeking a line you can make and God will conform to it?
Who is greater...you or the Creator?

I draw the line at imaginary friends.
Then at unsubstantiated claims.

Seems your "Creator" fails both.
Sorry.

 

[Luminous]

Then how does one know they are true? And also, isn't this only true of a certain type of statements - namely, self-referential ones?

ETA1: Okay, I looked that one up. It's about self-referential statements indeed. As far as I understand it, it does not imply that contradictory statements are true.

ETA2: So the issue still stands: Every definition of god that includes "god is absolute" but also says anything else - regardless of what -, is contradictory, because it ascribes relative attributes to an absolute god. And ex contradictio quodlibet. Thus, all monotheist religions are gibberish.

like i said...it only goes to show that we are all agnostic.

 

[Luminous]

Seems to me that it is merely a load of bovine excrement people tell themselves in order to justify their unreasonable belief in something that has no measurable effect on reality.

But then, I have been told that I am a glass half empty type person.

If you're attempting to empty the glass then "half empty" is the optimistic perspective.

or it could be looked at in a perhaps more pessimistic thought and say that the glass is halve empty of poison...or would that be optimistic?

 

[McBell]

or it could be looked at in a perhaps more pessimistic thought and say that the glass is halve empty of poison...or would that be optimistic?

seems to me that it depends entirely upon who you are planning to give said glass to........

 

[Luminous]

I recomend ZOMGitsCriss's "The unreasonable God".

Let's make it a religion !




...

 

[Thief]

So now this is another atheistic denial thread.
Anyone know how to stay on topic?

This thread does not require proof pf God.
(throws card of faith as trump)

This Thread is for deciding if God is beyond our reason.
Unless of course you can demonstrate a reasoning that would allow you to say.....I am God.

Who is greater...you or God?

 

[zenzero]

Friend vijeno,

"God is greater than reason"

God is a label to understand oneness of whatever we see or do not see. It is a state which one can be only ONE with and not perceive as a separate individual and that means one's mind needs to be *stilled* where "Thoughts" do not arise in the mind.
Whereas *reasoning* is to do with thoughts [mind] without thoughts there can be no reasoning and so it is clear why it is stated
God is greater [beyond] reasoning*

Love & rgds

 

[Sunstone]

In some people, yes, god is greater than reason. Those are the god-intoxicated folk.

 

[tumbleweed41]

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than of blind-folded
fear."
Thomas Jefferson

 

[McBell]

So now this is another atheistic denial thread.

Was it not YOU who asked where the line should be drawn?

Who is greater...you or God?

I have to go with me.
Of course, once again it is because I have as yet to see anything that god has done.


And don't you even whine about being off topic.
I merely answered your question.

 

[Luminous]

So now this is another atheistic denial thread.
Anyone know how to stay on topic?

This thread does not require proof pf God.
(throws card of faith as trump)

This Thread is for deciding if God is beyond our reason.
Unless of course you can demonstrate a reasoning that would allow you to say.....I am God.

Who is greater...you or God?

As i've said before, all this argument leads to is agnosticism...not any form of theism.

 

[Storm]

It is an unverifiable claim that in it's very utterance defies reason.

While it's not something I typically say, I sympathize in my own weird way.

Assume for the sake of argument that God exists in some form.

1) Every religion teaches that it's beyond human comprehension. (OK, so most promptly forget that and start babbling on about what it is/ wants/ etc., but if you press them, they do know better.)

2) Religious teaching aside, stop and think about it. What are the chances that piddling little humans would ever really understand God by whatever definition. If theism has the basics down, we're talking about the mind that authored the laws of physics. Pan(en)theism, a mind that encompasses the whole of the cosmos. Something we haven't even thought of, well... there's a reason we haven't thought of it.

Any of these possibilities would utterly defy our understanding.

So, when push comes to shove, God IS "beyond reason." Our minds are simply inadequate, and there's no reason to assume that any of the rules we've come up with, say logic, apply.

Now, to completely contradict myself......
That doesn't mean that, when pondering theology, we should abandon reason. Theology should MAKE SENSE. It should be defensible. It's wrong, sure, but that's no excuse to make it stupid.

 

[PolyHedral]

Our minds are simply inadequate, and there's no reason to assume that any of the rules we've come up with, say logic, apply.

Logic is necessary for any model of the universe to function. If we say that God isn't bound by logic, then we allow impossibilities. For instance, "logic" includes the notion that an object must exist to have effects.

 

[Storm]

Logic is necessary for any model of the universe to function.

Logic is a system of human thought, not a vital force of the cosmos. I was being precise.

Now, granted, things have to make sense. That doesn't mean they have to make sense to US.

ETA: I just noticed you said "model of the universe." I missed that nuance first time around. You're absolutely right: models of the universe require logic. They also exist only within our own minds, and are very likely wrong.

If we say that God isn't bound by logic, then we allow impossibilities.

We only know what's impossible within the rules we've come up with. My point is that said rules may exist only within our own minds.

 

[PolyHedral]

ETA: I just noticed you said "model of the universe." I missed that nuance first time around. You're absolutely right: models of the universe require logic. They also exist only within our own minds, and are very likely wrong.

If they're very likely wrong, please explain how the network of a billion transistors inside your computer works. The models we have come up with so far are very accurate, to the point where we can design structures that work correctly down to the atomic level.

We only know what's impossible within the rules we've come up with. My point is that said rules may exist only within our own minds.

Yes, but a universe that isn't constrained by logic is almost literally inconceivable. Effects aren't caused by anything, and entities can have effects without existing. (and then exist simultaneously, because there is no need for logical consistency.)

 

[sandandfoam]

Yes, but a universe that isn't constrained by logic is almost literally inconceivable. Effects aren't caused by anything, and entities can have effects without existing. (and then exist simultaneously, because there is no need for logical consistency.)

Which has what to do with it's existance?