• If God does exist, we have no way to speak of "his" nature, because by definition, God is beyond our realm of comprehension. Hence, The Bible (which is a man-made attempt at analyzing "God's Word), is perfectly fallible because it's filtered through human subjectivity and subject to human error. This is why I'm Agnostic.
  • 1. Don't know. 2. Yes.
  • Merry Christmas Ender. Some things have to be believed to be seen. - Ralph Hodgson
  • Yes, certainly many things are beyond our comprehension. You don't have to consider the mind of God for that, even "simple" things defy comprehension -- we don't notice this, because we're highly motivated and conditioned to ignore paradox: it preserves that warm, fuzzy feeling that we understand. Here's an example: Mr. Jones wants the simple life, so he sells his home, closes his bank accounts, and moves into a log cabin he built himself in the woods. Now when he wants coffee, he has to find some dry wood, chop it up, build a fire, hang the pot over the fire until the water boils, etc. Every task becomes much more complex than when he lived in his "complicated" home with all the modern conveniences. Yet we can't say that he hasn't simplified his life, he has! So what is "the simple life"? Being hooked up to all those appliances and the complex industrial and commercial world that supports them, or being out in the woods and having to chop your own fuel for a simple cup of coffee? It turns out that simplicity isn't so simple when it's studied in depth, and in fact it defies an unambiguous, absolute, and simple definition! So yeah, if there's a God, I would be completely surprised to be able to reduce his mind to a bunch of ideas I can understand. I can't even reduce my OWN mind to such.
  • Precisely.
  • Yes. But one thing I've always found interesting about the way this statement is used is that it can be used to qualify virtually any claim or statement. For example, when a religious fundamentalist is faced with something that their religious ethics are in strong opposition to, but for which there is little or no logical reason to condemn, they can try to stop debate by saying that "We cannot comprehend the will of God". And yet, that exact same token could be used to "Prove" that fundamentalist stance wrong. Afteall, if the will of God is so far beyond our comprehension, then why should it be safe to assume that we should build infelxible ethical principles based on something as easily misinterpreted as a supposed written transcription of said will? Those two arguments are diametrically opposed, but what warrents some contemplation here is what the two arguments have in *Common*. By their own admission neither argument can claim to draw much, if anything, from the actual "Will of God", because neither can claim to understand it. And if two people can draw from the same base information and draw diametrically opposed conclusions from it, then obviously the only factor with any true infleunce on their conclusion is not the "Mind of God", but rather their own subjective interpretation. In other words, any claim made based on the supposed "Word of God" is relatively meaningless.
  • 1. we have no proof that the human mind is finite 2. we have no proof that the God that we assume exist 3. maybe we shall just merge in a broader entity one day and understand much more 4. we just have to use Answerbag and we shall understand a lot more!!! That was not beyond your comprehension, was it? ;-)
  • If we cannot comprehend an answer, does that invalidate the question?
  • Yes there are and if we say that we don't know yet that is a far better answer than saying god did it!
  • You are very correct. Consider an ordinary case. When some thing happens, three questions arise - what, how and why. You will get an answer to the first question within a short period of time. It is physical in nature. You have to spend more time to answer the second question. It is mental in nature. Different persons may give different answers for the third question. But you will never get a true answer for it - it is philosophical in nature. Many questions were asked in the ancient Hindu texts about the nature of Parama Atama (infinite soul, or Almighty) and Atma (soul). In the olden days, Gurus used to put these questions to disciples to test their knowledge. What is the constituent material of Almighty? All created materials are subject to decay and annihilation, Almighty is above the influence of decay and annihilation. He is eternal. Then is Almighty a void? In terms of material characteristics, Almighty is void (Soonya). Can this lead to the logic that Almighty is not there? No. Almighty is there. He is consciousness, the infinite consciousness. The Atma which is a finite piece of Almighty, according to Advaita Vedanta - the personal consciousness. Soul was created in the likeness of the Infinite Soul. Since Atma is only a minute piece of Almighty, is it subjected to annihilation? No. Atma is also eternal.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy