YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Oddly, I thought it was so obvious as to be unworthy of mention, hence I took the approach of "How would you know?" To my thinking, the god side of the equation is irrelevant.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God is known to God
- Thread starter sridatta
- Start date
Atheologian
John Frum
how is the god side of the equation irrelevant when the problem is God knowing God exists? If you take God out of what we are discussing here, you don't have an equation.
Last edited:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I don't detect much of a conversation going on here, friend.
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
Oh boy, what an easy argument to crush
If the prerequisite for God is for God to know that he exists, he would have to exist in order to know that he exists. Basically, you are only assuming that he exists, in order to say that he knows that he exists. If I were to assume that he did NOT exist, than he could not POSSIBLY know of his own existence, or lack thereof, therefore the prerequisite has not been met.
Actually, if one is working under the supposition of a Perfect (transcendent) being then the normal rules of logic do not apply. Completely logically indeterminate. So existence and non-existence can occur simultaneously. Of course the whole completely logically indeterminate renders conversation completely useless as all attributions fail equally (including statements of capability and knowledge).
MTF
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Normal rules of logic don't apply because it is an absurd statement that falls apart when critical thinking is done.
Metalic Wings
Active Member
At some point I have to think to myself: "What does it matter? I doubt man will ever be able to prove the existence of God. Why don't we stop trying to shove our beliefs down other people's throats and let everyone be happy with their believing (or non-believing) ways?"
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
Completely logically indeterminate is the "reason" why all rules of logic do not apply; if you were to look at what indeterminate means in formal logic that is more or less definitional. It is hardly an absurd statement; it "merely" exceeds all faculties of existence that we are aware of. So "Critical thinking" is functionally useless as we can only relate to those things we have experience with. We have precisely ZERO experience with any true infinities. We can only speculate based upon generalizing patterns that we notice do not cease no matter how far enlarge the scope or object of inquiry. So "compounded" or "infinite" infinities results in a complete failure to conceptualize. (Error 403: Object of Inquiry Forbidden to imperfect beings with limited brain capacity)
Try as you might, while you may more or less succeed at showing how a personal "God" is an absurdity, you will find it rather impossible to show how a completely impersonal "God" is absurd. The best that can be said "against" a completely impersonal "God" is "we don't really know one way or another, so why should there be one?"
MTF
Last edited: