Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

No doubt your deity of choice sits there and wonders where he comes from.

You seem to be unable to think outside the box.
The source of all creation can't exist within the parameters of time and space which we perceive in our universe.  Our theologians believe that God exists in an ever present timeless state with no beginning and no end.  Totally beyond the comprehension of our human brains.

[Rhiannon]

You seem to be unable to think outside the box.
The source of all creation can't exist within the parameters of time and space which we perceive in our universe.  Our theologians believe that God exists in an ever present timeless state with no beginning and no end.  Totally beyond the comprehension of our human brains.

That's not thinking outside the box, that's making stuff up.

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to be unable to think outside the box.
The source of all creation can't exist within the parameters of time and space which we perceive in our universe.  Our theologians believe that God exists in an ever present timeless state with no beginning and no end.  Totally beyond the comprehension of our human brains.

Assertion and nonsensical vapidity. If you cannot begin to comprehend it, making statements which are internally illogical 'exists' being a temporal statement which you then contradict is just an illustration that 'your' theologians have the analytical capability of a bouncy castle.

[Gordon]

You seem to be unable to think outside the box.

You seem unable to think without falling headfirst into fallacies.

The source of all creation can't exist within the parameters of time and space which we perceive in our universe.

Such as this one for instance.

Our theologians believe that God exists in an ever present timeless state with no beginning and no end.

Yours, not 'our', and why on earth should we take your theologians seriously since all they are doing is endlessly reorganising the various theological fallacies for the benefit of the credulous.
 

Totally beyond the comprehension of our human brains.

So? That everything isn't yet known, and probably won't ever be known is; a) not disputed, and b) not a problem: we keep looking and thinking based on proven methods of investigation.

[torridon]

You seem to be unable to think outside the box.
The source of all creation can't exist within the parameters of time and space which we perceive in our universe.  Our theologians believe that God exists in an ever present timeless state with no beginning and no end.  Totally beyond the comprehension of our human brains.

Self contradictory.

No-one, theologian or otherwise, can believe something beyond their comprehension, by definition. You cannot find convincing that which is incomprehensible.

[Alan Burns]

That everything isn't yet known, and probably won't ever be known is; a) not disputed, and b) not a problem: we keep looking and thinking based on proven methods of investigation.

So by limiting your beliefs to what can be proven by man made methodologies you will never discover any God which exists beyond the scope of these methodologies.

[Alan Burns]

Self contradictory.

No-one, theologian or otherwise, can believe something beyond their comprehension, by definition. You cannot find convincing that which is incomprehensible.

But we should still recognise when that "something beyond our comprehension" makes itself known in a form which is comprehensible to us.

[Nearly Sane]

But we should still recognise when that "something beyond our comprehension" makes itself known in a form which is comprehensible to us.

How?

[Nearly Sane]

So by limiting your beliefs to what can be proven by man made methodologies you will never discover any God which exists beyond the scope of these methodologies.

I only have man made methodologies.

[Gordon]

So by limiting your beliefs to what can be proven by man made methodologies you will never discover any God which exists beyond the scope of these methodologies.

Then how do you know (as in having knowledge) - so you must have a reliable method that isn't based on the fallacious assertions you keep trotting out: so what is it?

If you haven't then you aren't even wrong.

[torridon]

But we should still recognise when that "something beyond our comprehension" makes itself known in a form which is comprehensible to us.

We would be able to understand only the extent of its comprehensible manifestation.  If a little green man from Venus stops me in the street tomorrow and says "On Venus I work for the charbottlestop of Biggleflattyworkrod and I make daddyflatbas heatbashtootlepips for twinkletoe fridays mustard bath", I might be able to form an opinion that he does some sort of work but beyond that I cannot form a opinion or a belief because I don't understand it. Anything supernatural would be incomprehensible to us.

[Alan Burns]

How?

Try reading the New Testament

[Nearly Sane]

Try reading the New Testament

Try answering the question.

Try discussion, try engaging, try not misrepresenting, try avoiding fallacies, try not writing drivel, try to actually deal with points, try not to roll out circular pish, try not to be like some eejit endlessly maundering on about how hard it is. Try growing up.

Try a future

Try life

[Shaker]

Try reading the New Testament

Does that differ from reading the Quran in some way? Given what's said of its formation (i.e. the appearance of the angel Gabriel to Mohammed, dictating the contents of the book to him) doesn't that also fit the bill of ""something beyond our comprehension" mak[ing] itself known in a form which is comprehensible to us"?

(I have read the NT, by the way - over all, several times by now, I imagine).

[OH MY WORLD!]

Silly old Shaker, you are describing what that magician, Jo Smith, claimed happened to him. Islam got the Koran and Mormons got the Book of Mormon. 

[Shaker]

Silly old Shaker, you are describing what that magician, Jo Smith, claimed happened to him. Islam got the Koran and Mormons got the Book of Mormon.

And what's the difference between those and the NT? Any actual difference that doesn't rely on assertion and question begging, I mean.

Remember that Alan Burns asserts that reading the New Testament is an example of something incomprehensible making itself known in a form comprehensible to us. I must have read the NT a few times by now and I don't remember that bit at any point.

[Leonard James]

Try reading the New Testament

That will only work if you are credible enough to believe it. After all, it is nothing more than a collection of books written by men who already believed what they wrote ... just like any other religious belief, and they can't all be true.

You are trapped by your own gullibility, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

Try answering the question.

If Shakespeare wanted to make himself known to the characters in one of his plays, the only way he could do it would be to become one of those characters.

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

[Shaker]

If Shakespeare wanted to make himself known to the characters in one of his plays, the only way he could do it would be to become one of those characters.

Those characters are fictional. What on earth is this nonsense?

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet.

[Alan Burns]

There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet.

I think you have just declared yourself to be a Muslim 

[Alan Burns]

Those characters are fictional. What on earth is this nonsense?

It is just an example of how a creator can make himself known to what he has created.

[Nearly Sane]

If Shakespeare wanted to make himself known to the characters in one of his plays, the only way he could do it would be to become one of those characters.

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

Nope, not answering the question, though I think here it's because you don't understand it.


You stated we got knowledge about something incomprehensible from it making itself comprehensible in some way.
 How do Shakespeare's characters know the difference, allowing them to 'know' things in order to make analogy work at all, between someone saying I wrote you and someone who did write them?

[Gordon]

If Shakespeare wanted to make himself known to the characters in one of his plays, the only way he could do it would be to become one of those characters.

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

Good grief! There is misguided and then there is just plain daft, and this is the latter.

The one aspect you do highlight, probably unknowingly, is one I thought you'd try hard to avoid: which is that there is less evidence for Jesus than there is for some of the historical characters as portrayed by Shakespeare putting fictional words in their mouths: which, of course, may well also be the case as regards what Jesus is claimed to have said in the NT.

What Richard III 'says' in Shakespeare's play is acknowledged fiction, and what Jesus 'says' in the NT is indistinguishable from fiction - well done you!   

[Brownie]

Which bit of Alan's post is nonsense, in your opinion?  The bit about Shakespeare or Jesus being the way, the truth and the life?

[Alan Burns]

Good grief! There is misguided and then there is just plain daft, and this is the latter.

The one aspect you do highlight, probably unknowingly, is one I thought you'd try hard to avoid: which is that there is less evidence for Jesus than there is for some of the historical characters as portrayed by Shakespeare putting fictional words in their mouths: which, of course, may well also be the case as regards what Jesus is claimed to have said in the NT.

What Richard III 'says' in Shakespeare's play is acknowledged fiction, and what Jesus 'says' in the NT is indistinguishable from fiction - well done you!   

Fiction is man's creation.
Life is God's creation.