What is God?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Beyond human comprehension.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Isn't certainty that something is beyond human comprehension sort of self-contradicting?

No. I don't see why it should be either; you can easily acknowledge the existence of something while admitting that you will never be able to understand it anything more than an extremely basic level.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That depends what you mean by "observable", doesn't it. But, then again, I wasn't really thinking of observation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course it isn't rational. I never claimed it to be rational. Rationality is a human concept anyway; an attempt to impose order (as we see it anyway) on chaos. Not that that's necessarily or always a bad thing. Many good things have come from it. It's just we should be more aware of its limits than we generally are; rationality does not (and obviously does not) have an objective existence.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I am merely making the point that religion has its inate flaws and that pointing them out is not intolerance, even if it was worded harshly and rather smugly.

Everything we do has inate flaws. Religion is, in this respect and many others, no different from other human institutions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The very concession that humans are unable to empirically observe a phenomenon means they are not omniscient,

I'm getting on for being the last person to imply that humans are omniscient in any respect

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are not just creatures of observation. Which is fortunate as half the time (at least) we aren't much use at it. Looking down the well and seeing our own faces and so on. Apologies for any weird tangents, it's a little late here, I've overworked myself the past two days and I can't sleep...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if an empirical observation is even possible in this case (which is the point thou bist trying to make, I think), but I digress. The answer is that I know it to be true. Now, I'm a religious man and you aren't, so that obviously won't mean a thing to you and will probably seem like an extremely weak argument. And if it were an argument, it would be. But it isn't an argument, it isn't an intellectual position. It's a simple statement of what I believe. I'm not especially interested in converting others to my position(s) or with holding myself as being superior in anyway to people who do not feel this way.

Something else as well, which I suppose might count as an observation, is the thought that it is absurd that we, mere humans as we are, could ever hope to understand God in anything other than (relatively) utterly simple terms.

"Who are you to do this?" (and variations thereof) is always a good question, I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A rock is indeed a rock, but that certainly isn't what I meant (and of course, the rock may be other things as well). I don't mean the objective facts of the material world, but the attempts to impose order upon them and on everything else. Rationality is all about imposing order on chaos; that's the whole point. It is an attempt to understand things which may often be objective, yes, but it is not objective itself. Humanity is flawed, utterly flawed*, and the very opposite of omniscient. This also goes for the structures of thought that it builds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I wasn't arguing that anyone was doing that, so that's alright then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Everything gets special treatment.

*Now, by that I do not mean that we are utterly evil and wicked or whatever. Flawed, that's all. Not perfect.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just want to mention that I'm on tap to reply to both Gully's and your post, Al, when I'm clear-headed and not on OTC drugs.

Considering that I replaced at a quarter past three in the morning, I think it's only fair if you reply before the drugs leave your system.