As humans we are not satisfied with “answers” that do not “explicate” (or at least I am not). Science restricts itself to contexts in which it can do both. The God Hypothesis does not.
(Emphasis mine) Lots to be said about this formulary, but the one key point is that the use of incomprehensible here means, roughly, “not able to be fully understood in every detail” – i.e., God is greater and more manifold than human beings can grasp – not “unable to be understood whatsoever” as we might today (incorrectly) use the term.
{fixed code. --Gaudere}
[Edited by Gaudere on 10-03-2001 at 01:29 PM]
It makes better sense to say “I can’t understand” and be done with it, than to continually believe you can understand, when you cannot.
Polycarp restores my faith in humanity. Thanks.
My pleasure! 
BTW, did you mean “faith” or “belief”? And what’s your certitude on it? 
I agree. That is why I find science’s answer to be more reasonable. What makes no sense to me is to say “I can’t understand” and then pretend you have an explication.
Polycarp
The traditional meaning of incomprehensible works fine for my point. After all, we say essentially the same thing in recognizing the limitations of scientific exploration. I didn’t say “science’s answer makes more sense”. I simply found humor in the structure of Cyril’s presentation. It made me laugh; then again, I like absurdist humor. If Inigo doesn’t do it for you imagine John Cleese and Graham Chapman having the exchange.
I meant faith, and my certitude was wavering. That’s why I needed you.
Please don’t think I am one of those fundamentalist creationists who pretends to have concrete evidence concerning the creation of the earth or any other of the many questions which are explained by God and explored by science. I don’t, no Christian does. If God were to give us concrete proof it would completely ruin the idea of faith.
The Bible can’t acceptably explain the origin of life to a scientist, but I know many a scientist who believe it, not because it makes scientific sense, but because it just makes sense.
I have no problem with people who just aren’t convinced, who haven’t learned the truth (I believe it to be truth so I am going to use that word) but I don’t pretend to have the answers these people are looking for, they refuse to have faith and want nothing but cold hard facts (if there are such things) and no one can provide that. I won’t pretend to have any explanation but this:
We are not God. Unless we somehow become God, we just won’t get it.
(On this earth anyway, heaven is a different story. I like to think that all will be explained, but maybe we won’t need explanation)
Our yearning for explanation, however, is simply (or complexly) a matter of time. What I mean by ‘time’ is we have ‘time’ to consider why. If we were concerned solely with surviving and not with what color shoes go with what color shirt, ‘why’ would not be of concern.
I suppose my objection to the eternal demand ‘why’ is purely critical of our reasoning for its myriad answers. Why this, b/c that. The infinite, and seemingly all valid, answers to ‘why’ suggest to me an inherent fallibility.
If ‘why’ has no foundation in reality, ‘why’ is never subject to anything but imagination and the imagination is subject to nothing.
‘Why’ is always answered in such a manner to acheive, if only ephemeral, equanimity.
arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…
m lost my idea, what a pity…
Çyrin, for the record, I believe too, but I still think you’ve got this piece of logic arse-about-face, try to see it from the other perspective, if I said to you that you can’t really dismiss my assertion that the Tiny Orange Potato People* exist, because
“It’s up to you to make a decision whether to believe the evidence or not, obviously you don’t so you can go back to being unsure about the existence of Tiny Orange Potato People, personally I am going to continue to believe. When you have searched EVERYWHERE and found there to be no Tiny Orange Potato People, come on back, present your findings and we’ll talk…”
It wouldn’t be a reasonable statement; to be worth anything, acceptance (or belief) should (IMHO) be based on the {existence of evidence}, not the {non-existence (or impossibility) of refutation}.
*[sup](I really don’t like using the IPU analogy, but I have to choose something as an example that you currently have no reason to believe in)[/sup]
Good breakdown Polycarp.
In anycase, science, philosophy, and religion are just methods of attempting to explain certain phenomenon by theorizing, hypothesizing, show evidence, and be subject to logical counter arguments.
Ultimately, science itself is not based on ‘proofing’ per say, rather, it’s falsifying existing theories and hypothesis. If certain theory or hypothesis survives a falsification test, then it becomes ‘stronger’ (probability approaches to ‘+1’ or 100%, but chances are it’ll never reaches there; scientist are happy with something like 60% from their tests and obeservation, depending on alpha levels and other statistical components). Otherwise, it’s disproved and scientists must come up with a new theory (or hypothesis) or make adjustments to it.
Remember, science is just one way of explaining a particular phenonmenon, just like any other discipline from philosophy to theology to economics (not much to do with God, but I’m sure it can say something about Jesse Jackson and the money he rakes in). All are subject to logical tests and counter-arguments.
In a related matter to the OP, let me give you a quote from Albert Einstein: “Science without religion is boring. Religion without science is blind”.
Cheers,
jovius
(Emphasis mine)
You’ve said this to me before on other occasions. What do you mean by “if there are such things”? Does this come back to your “I don’t understand” comment?
If I bring you a ‘cold hard fact’ in regards to the age of the Earth, or C14 results of a fossil that determines its ‘round-about’ age, are you going to dismiss it as a ‘fact’ just because you don’t understand it and therefore say it is inaccurate?
If God is both necessarily indefinable and inconceivable any attempt to equivocate God becomes a description of not-God.
Is this then proof there is no God? Is my, not my novel assertion, re-assertion proof of the ‘is-not’ regardless of the ‘is’?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Çyrin *
**
Using this argument, we should abandon all attempts to understand the universe, and return to the “goddidit” principle.
Why’s it dark at night? Goddidit.
Why did my mother die suddenly? Goddidit.
Why don’t we have electricity anymore, now that the power plant’s exploded? Goddidit.
Mangetout, I can’t argue the existence of the Tiny Orange potato people, but I also can’t argue their non-existence. The former because I haven’t had any personal experiences with said TOPP, and the later because I haven’t confirmed their non-existence.
No one has yet confirmed the non-existence of God so to argue such is unfounded. Many people (you included) have found or had a personal experience involving God and they in turn believe in his existence. I would argue that very few people just wake up one day and vehemently argue the existence of God.
It was suggested that I replace God with Santa in my argument, this however does not work. We as humans created the idea of Santa, and we then passed it around as Myth. God created us and then revealed himself time and time again to us and we in turn passed it around as fact.
Next time you have a personal experience with the TOPP, let us all know. I will then decide based upon what you have to say weather to pursue a personal encounter of my own. When I tell people “God exists! This is why I believe in Him”, I don’t expect them to take my word as truth, I can only hope that my own experience will convince to go out and look for God on their own.
You are certain that man created Santa, but you are equally certain that man did not create God.
How very odd.
No but if you were to present me with these facts, I would do only what I expect everyone to do. When I hear something, I don’t just assume it to be fact. I look for the answers on my own. Someone presented me with the idea of God, but i didn’t believe it until i experienced Him for myself. I would expect nothing different when presented with science. (btw I don’t believe in a young earth, that’s just absurd)
No, this is the argument surrounding the existence of God and the inexplicable happenings before we were here. We can go on and say that the sun sets because “goddidit” but God didn’t just “do it” he set the planets in orbit and now it appears to set. Please stop trying to use a “that’s too simple” so it can’t be true argument. It IS too simple and it IS true.
You’re serious, right?
So some one says that there are no “Tiny Orange Potato People”, you’re gonna take the position of, “We’ll we don’t know for sure.”?
Come on pal…
Sure it does.
How do you know that we as humans didn’t, in fact, create the Idea of God and then pass it around as Myth and use that Myth as a means of controlling people? Simple, you (and I, for that matter) don’t. But you believe that God created us, and not the other way around. (Where as I do not.)
You say there is no way of knowing unless you’ve searched everywhere, but you turn around and say emphatically that Santa isn’t real without doing such a search, but then turn again and say that you cannot argue the non-existence of the TOPP’s. Sorry dude, but you’re flip-flopping.
So you think Man didn’t create Santa?? Then Who?
Yes I am certain man didn’t create God, because I have experienced God.
It should seem odd to someone who hasn’t experienced Him.
Çyrin, i can see where you’re coming from, I’ll even admit that it has a sort of logic(!?) to it, but I just don’t think it’s a very productive debating tactic (I won’t go quite as far as to call it ‘dishonest’ though, not yet)