If God is the ultimate truth...

[Beaudreaux]

Assuming the ultimate truth isn't that they are all the right way.

You believe there is an ultimate truth now?

 

[Beaudreaux]

No, no one can know God COMPLETELY, God is infinite. So no one can possibly fully understand God or even try to imagine the Absolute Truth (God) in His fullness.

I believe that any religion that teaches Love for God (absolute truth) is a real Religion.

What if that God wants his followers to fly planes into buildings? (NOT slamming all muslims here, but obviously some Muslims feel/felt that way about the God they love(d).)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

None of the blind men were correct, though.

I disagree. They were only incorrect in inferring that their experience was representative of the totality of the elephant. They were all completely accurate at describing the elephant in a limited way.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Unknowable denotes pointlessness. If I felt God was unknowable than I would indeed move on, but I do not feel that way. Though I understand where you are coming from...

I'm sorry, but didn't you say in an earlier post that God was not fully knowable?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry, but didn't you say in an earlier post that God was not fully knowable?

"Not fully knowable" <> "fully unknowable".

 

[Beaudreaux]

"Not fully knowable" <> "fully unknowable".

Fair enough. So, what part(s) of God can we "know" and how is this knowledge obtained?

 

[Willamena]

Fair enough. So, what part(s) of God can we "know" and how is this knowledge obtained?

How about the part(s) that are us, and obtained in the usual way?

 

[Beaudreaux]

How about the part(s) that are us, and obtained in the usual way?

I'm God?

I KNEW it!!!! I've felt that way for years now! Quick, get a pen and paper. In a moment, your lord and master will have a bunch of things he commands you to do.

 

[PolyHedral]

Fair enough. So, what part(s) of God can we "know" and how is this knowledge obtained?

And, more importantly, why is this knowledge reliable? God is unknowable, after all.

 

[ChristineES]

Look at it this way: God is the ultimate truth; but huamns can only experience life so far. They have a limited view of truth. Then you can see where most of we theists stand.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Look at it this way: God is the ultimate truth; but huamns can only experience life so far. They have a limited view of truth. Then you can see where most of we theists stand.

But how do you know that there is more to know?

 

[ChristineES]

But how do you know that there is more to know?

I don't know for sure. I don't know anything for sure. All I have is an assumption that there must be more.

 

[Dan4reason]

Look at it this way: God is the ultimate truth; but huamns can only experience life so far. They have a limited view of truth. Then you can see where most of we theists stand.

Because humans have a limited view of truth, we should certainly not believe in anything without good evidence. Faith is a ridiculous idea in this context. Since you cannot know anything perfectly, get as much evidence as possible. Let the evidence define your beliefs, and do not let your beliefs define your evidence.

 

[ChristineES]

Because humans have a limited view of truth, we should certainly not believe in anything without good evidence. Faith is a ridiculous idea in this context. Since you cannot know anything perfectly, get as much evidence as possible. Let the evidence define your beliefs, and do not let your beliefs define your evidence.

I have said before that I do have evidence- just no scientific evidence. I wouldn't tell you this evidence because I doubt that you would recognize it as such. My evidence is in my spirit.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Because humans have a limited view of truth, we should certainly not believe in anything without good evidence. Faith is a ridiculous idea in this context. Since you cannot know anything perfectly, get as much evidence as possible. Let the evidence define your beliefs, and do not let your beliefs define your evidence.

Evidence and experience are often at odds. Evidence and human consciousness are often at odds.
In both cases evidence is just not available.

 

[Dan4reason]

I have said before that I do have evidence- just no scientific evidence. I wouldn't tell you this evidence because I doubt that you would recognize it as such. My evidence is in my spirit.

You cannot be so sure. I would love to hear your evidence and see if it has any meaning in my life. I consider evidence to be something that indicates that something is true.

 

[Dan4reason]

Evidence and experience are often at odds. Evidence and human consciousness are often at odds.
In both cases evidence is just not available.

How can the evidence not be available when it is apparently at odds with experience and human consciousness? I don't think I understand your post very much.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I have said before that I do have evidence- just no scientific evidence. I wouldn't tell you this evidence because I doubt that you would recognize it as such. My evidence is in my spirit.

So your evidence is not evident to others.

 

[Midnight Pete]

No, no one can know God COMPLETELY, God is infinite. So no one can possibly fully understand God or even try to imagine the Absolute Truth (God) in His fullness.

I believe that any religion that teaches Love for God (absolute truth) is a real Religion.

I agree! :yes: :bow:

These are my thoughts exactly.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

How can the evidence not be available when it is apparently at odds with experience and human consciousness? I don't think I understand your post very much.

Simply that with many experiences, personal ones, there isn't evidence, but simply the experience. The experience happened, but often is the case there is no evidence to test the experience. The same is with the human consciousness, in that we don't know how to really explain it, current science approach is awkward at best because there isn't much if any evidence available.