As I’ve aged and pondered the question of God’s existence, I’ve found a nice philosophical niche that I have yet to be wrested from:
“If God’s intelligence is infinite and Man’s intelligence (extremely) finite, what hope is there for Man to understand God?”
I welcome any attempts to wrest me from this very comfortable (possibly temporary) philosophical rest area.
You’ve misunderstood what I posted twice. Everybody “has to” explain where the universe comes from. Atheists (let’s not say scientists here) don’t have to explain anything else because the universe is the entirety of what needs to be explained. Theists believe the universe was created by something that existed before the universe and has, somehow, some different properties. That’s the “extra” hurdle.
If Man’s intelligence is finite, they we could possibly be wrong in our unfounded conclusion that God’s intelligence is infinite.
If you say so. :rolleyes:
Actually, that’s not what science says at all. There’s pretty good evidence that the net energy of the universe as a whole equals zero. The energy debt require to create all the stuff is balanced by the negative gravitational potential of the expansion of space. The books balance.
But you have provided another argument against God. How does God balance His books? Where’s the corresponding negative energy to offset God’s existence so he doesn’t violate the conservation law/
No beginning. No end. Outside of time.
And where would that be, exactly?
It’s clear you’ve reached the stage where you are no longer able to defend your position, but are still unwilling to concede the point.
If he’s outside of time, how does he DO anything?
How does something exist outside of time? I addressed this kind of thing already: “it’s a First Cause” and “it’s outside of time” isn’t an explanation. It’s an excuse for a non-explanation.
None. However, if God is utterly incomprehensible then we have no way of knowing his desires or intentions. There no point in basing a religion on an incomprehensible God, or altering our behavior one whit to accommodate Him. An incomprehensible God is, for all practical purposes, no different than no God at all.
However, most theists treat God as something comprehensible. He’s presented as a being with a particular agenda. They only retreat into the “God works in mysterious ways” dodge when someone points out a hole in their theology. God is only incomprehensible when it’s convenient for him to be so.
Outside of time, also outside of space. Beyond that, I can’t tell you exactly where. Think about it: does the creator exist inside his own creation or outside it?
This is where things get trippy. 
No-Oz, Wonderland and Pellucidar are trippy. “Outside of space and time” is a nonsense placeholder term without definition.
Today’s Scenes From A Multiverse is surprisingly appropriate to this discussion.
I love this quote from the same page:
That’s only if whatever you know of God you get from 2nd and 3rd hand sources. If you are in a personal relationship with Him, it never has to be filtered or buffered through needlessly multiplied entities. Just this afternoon, I was having lunch at my favourite local diner at a table by myself (:() and the Holy Spirit was counselling me as he always does. He is the Counsellor.
Go ahead and mock me, I don’t care.
What does he look like? Does he have a deep voice? If he only speaks in your mind, how do you tell your thoughts from his?
God is a needlessly multiplied entity. When we’re talking about cosmology, that’s the problem: we have a model of the universe that seems to work just fine without producing evidence for God, but under the God model we somehow have to create a way for something that predates the universe, doesn’t obey its laws, and can act on the universe without being in it.
Not that I’m arguing in favour of a deity (although I’d certainly argue in favour of respecting his faith as long as it doesn’t negatively impact anything), don’t several of the multiverse theories treat that concept as having meaning? Separate unconnected regions of spacetime?
As I said, most theists claim that their personal God is comprehensible. They only shift that position when you point out some logical inconsistency in their personal God.
I believe that you *felt *a spiritual presence speaking to you. However, the question is: How do you know that experience was God and not your own subconscious? You seem to put a lot of faith in the accuracy of your perceptions … much more than I would. I don’t trust my rickety, leaky ape brain enough to automatically decide that a voice I hear must be from God. The hardware is too unreliable.