Showing Mangetout that God doesn't exist in 'another thread'.

sirjamesp You should know better than to use analogies in a GD thread about religion.

(I’m considering formulating Mangetout’s second law: Analogies can only ever be misunderstood in an SDMB religious debate)

You are right of course, Mangetout - an analogy is a loose cannon in any GD.

Deploying analogy in a GD needs to be done very carefully; it is safest to assume that people will see it as a literal analogy and seize cheerfully on its flaws, even if it was only used to make a small side-point.

A better way to use such devices when they are called for would be something like this:

ROFPMSL

I’m just waiting for my banana/eggcup analogy (yes, guilty) to turn renegade.

sirjamesp, I thought that the Chinese didn’t believe in God.

God cannot be understood by humans

We establish:

Anything humans understand, cannot be an understanding of God (any property of God), by those humans. God cannot be good, evil, smart, dumb, living, dead, aware, existent, non-existent; etc …

God cannot communicate any understanding of ‘itself’ to humans. Rendering the topic meaningless. (this is the short-cut to God not being able to understnd human beings)

To say that God cannot be understood fully by man (implying by ommision a vague ability to understand something about God), simply reduces God to interchangablity with any idea or concept; rendering the topic meaningless.

Humans cannot know everything about anything; anything that humans cannot (per axiom) fully comprehend, is interchangable with any human term or idea.

Any human who believes to have an understanding of anything relating to the term God is delusional.

But can a banana fit into an egg cup?

“”"""""""""“Your “God cannot do these two things” claim is flawed - if we accept the premise that there is an omnipotent God, then I imagine a simple paradox wouldn’t be too difficult to overcome. He could either cheat (e.g. in the gun example, let the gunman die before he decides to aim at the invincible guy), or he can just use his godly tricks (why not simply create another universe so both outcomes can be true?). Better still, he could just avoid making daft promises in the first place . “””"""""""""""

There is still quite a bit to work with here! By transposing the paradox from inanimate objects to humans, we can detetermine argumnets of ‘freewill vs. determinism’ towards collapse meaning inherent within God.
We can also argue that: practices that God must utilize to posess an omni-state renders that those states are not present within God. (i.e. God cannot actually possess an omni - state, but in utilizing covert means, God can convince others and possibly even the self that these states are within.) We can then move into how this is no different than how humans can posess omni-states. (i.e. I know everything, prove me wrong.)

Justhink

“”"""""""“But can a banana fit into an egg cup?”"""""""""""

Size matters !

-Justhink

I was looking for a yes or no answer only (knowing, of course that neither yes or no can be completely correct in this case)

I’m interested in your point and how it relates to the line of topic here (I don’t want to guess as to what it is)

-Justhink

I’m afraid I understand very little of the above; please could you break it down into smaller pieces that are easier to digest?

God is not limited to what I don’t understand, rather, he is not constrained my understanding in any way. The fact that my perception and understanding cannot encompass all that God is does not operate to prevent God from giving me some understanding of what He is.

I am the being with limits.

I knew this proof of God stuff would come to a bad end.

Tris

To ask the question “can God be understood by humans?” is a bit like (and I’ll run into trouble with this analogy, I just know it) the question “can a banana fit into an egg cup?”; it isn’t reasonable to insist on a boolean yes/no answer;

“yes, a banana can fit into an egg cup” - what all of it? - demonstrably false; the dimensions of the banana will not permit it to fit into the egg cup, even if we force it, the volume of the banana exceeds the space available.

“no, a banana cannot fit into an egg cup” - what, not at all? - look, here; I put the end of the banana into the egg cup voila! the banana is in the egg cup, well, the banana is now inserted into the egg cup and it’s true that I’ve put the banana in the egg cup, haven’t I?

The best answer to the question is “a banana can partly fit into an egg cup”.

God can be partly understood by humans.

Justthink, this is my belief in God:

“Pythagoras is God”
Disprove

(I refer to myself, not the mystical triangle man)

“”"""""""""""""""""God is not limited to what I don’t

understand, rather, he is not constrained my understanding

in any way. The fact that my perception and understanding

cannot encompass all that God is does not operate to

prevent God from giving me some understanding of what He

is."""""""""""""""""""

The point here is about what you do understand and how

that relates to the ‘axiom’:

Humans cannot understand God

I’m not saying that God is limited by what we don’t

understand. Can we discern from what we do understand,

that aspects of what we do not understand have no value?
It’s a lofty question! If I answer yes to that question,

I’d wanna be pretty damn sure I didn’t miss ‘anything’.

The first point of contention here is how to ‘read’ this

axiom. Humans cannot understand God? OR Humans cannot

understand everything about God? Can humans understand

something(s), anything about God? These questions need

to be dealt with first, as they are critical to analyzing

the axiom (or ‘definition’ as you will) IMO.

If it is contended that humans cannot understand anything

about God; then I contend that I have ‘won’ by default.

Obviously, you can’t know anything about God, so why bother

talking about this? The proof would render, "Any human who

believes to have an understanding of anything relating to

the term God is delusional." UNLESS!! A human being can

be correct, but not know that they are correct. This would

be the equivilent of a lottery … x% of people will have

contracted ‘y’ thought form. This would play out much like

a lottery, and IMO is still quite meaningless as a concept.
We can divide all the probabilities, but never be certain

which one gets the ‘prize’ (actually knows something about

God… without knowing it).

We can also determine a few things that God cannot do, if

humans cannot understand anything about God.

We know that anyone who asks God for understanding of God

will not get their wish fulfilled (while they are human).

In fact we can determine any result from asking God for

understanding of God, as a conclusion of something God

cannot be understood as.

Understanding can (notice I said can) be further reduced

to (amongst others): Understanding the ways of God. If

one takes it to this extension, then we can assert that

anyone who asks to embody the ways or God or the path of

God in expression rather than 'thought based

undertsanding’, will not have their request fulfilled.

To say that a person cannot understand anything about

God, renders an axiom of negation for anyone who actually

expresses God in any way, or declares that another being is

expressing God in some way. Either they are lying, or they

are deluded.

We can determine that God will not (or cannot) reveal

himself in an understandable way to humans. This becomes

an issue with Gods ability to exersise certain powers, and

it becomes an issue of Gods relevance to us and our needs.

We can determine that the only ways to possibly gain an

understanding of God is to:
a.) Geneticly alter a human being into a different species.
b.) Commit suicide
c.) Wait for the ‘natural’ life-cycle to expire

Next topic:

Sooo… let’s say that we can understand something

about God.

The axiom then becomes:

Humans cannot understand everything about God. (they can

understand some things, but not everything )

We can determine that:
If every human being understood what every human being

understood, the entire collection of the human population

over the course of an infinite history of knowledge and

understanding cannot know everything about God.

We can determine that (per an axiom outside this system):
Humans cannot know everything about any topic or subject.

Since God has no other properties associated with it, we

can collapse the meaning of God right here.

Humans cannot know everything about God
Humans cannot know everything about anything

Without additional properties, God becomes a subset of:

anything

Hopefully that helped articulate it a bit more.

“”""""""""I knew this proof of God stuff would come to a

bad end."""""""""

???

-Justhink

“Renegade Banana/Eggcup Analogy”

Now THERE’S a band name.:smiley:

“”"""""""""""The best answer to the question is “a banana can partly fit into an egg cup”.

God can be partly understood by humans."""""""""""""""""

Good analogy, but… At what point is God being distinguished from anything else of compare?
Does everything fit into God, does God fit into everything or is God everything & everything God? How about replacing God with ‘anything’, instead of ‘everything’, and try again.

The point of topic here is: human understanding and God

It is framed as ‘all possible human understanding’
It is used as: Impossible

It is impossible for any and/or all human understanding to contain any and/or all understanding of God.

We can determine properties of God by examining ourselves, as to what God cannot be… possibly even what God can be.

In the same analogy; we can know quite a bit about this ‘unknown banana’, by measuring up our egg holder. We know that at a certain convergence, the banana is restricted to being a certain shape and/or size. If you suppose that ‘some’ of the banana can be held, but not all… you are speaking in terms of a unillateral process. The banana is consistent throughout, as a property to be held, as is the egg container. They just contain different quantities of the same exact quality (surface area).

I imagine that you are arguing that God does not have a unillateral quality, but rather variable quality in a form that humans cannot ever measure, because by their intrinsic nature they can never detect. ? The question then becomes, can ‘variable quality’ actually understand what it means to be a different one? Are there sets that we know as human beings, where different qualities form hierachies? I’ll think about this a bit more…

-Justhink

Humans cannot know everything about anything
Humans cannot know everything about God
Therefore God is just an ordinary ‘anything’

Is that what you are saying?

If so, this assumes (falsely, I believe) that the reasons for our failure to fully know must always be the same.

Tris

Caiaphas The High Priest

In speaking of that man Jesus and of His death let us consider two salient facts: the Torah must needs be held in safety by us, and this kingdom must needs be protected by Rome. Now that man was defiant to us and to Rome. He poisoned the mind of the simple people, and He led them as if by magic against us and against Caesar.

My own slaves, both men and women, after hearing him speak in the market-place, turned sullen and rebellious. Some of them left my house and escaped to the desert whence they came. Forget not that the Torah is our foundation and our tower of strength. No man shall undermine us while we have this power to restrain his hand, and no man shall overthrow Jerusalem so long as its walls stand upon the ancient stone that David laid.

If the seed of Abraham is indeed to live and thrive this soil must remain undefiled. And that man Jesus was a defiler and a corrupter. We slew Him with a conscience both deliberate and clean. And we shall slay all those who would debase the laws of Moses or seek to befoul our sacred heritage. We and Pontius Pilatus knew the danger in that man, and that it was wise to bring Him to an end.

I shall see that His followers come to the same end, and the echo of His words to the same silence. If Judea is to live all men who oppose her must be brought down to the dust. And ere Judea shall die I will cover my gray head with ashes even as did Samuel the prophet, and I will tear off this garment of Aaron and clothe me in sackcloth until I go hence for ever.

Jesus, the Son of Man — Kahlil Gibran