Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 7:01 pm
pocaracas Wrote:What does "God [...]exists Transcendental to the Universe" mean?
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-transcendent.html
To transcend means “to exist above and independent from; to rise above, surpass, succeed.” By this definition, God is the only truly transcendent Being. .......Being transcendent, God is both the unknown and unknowable, yet God continually seeks to reveal Himself to His creation, i.e., the unknown seeks to be known. Here is a paradox. Being transcendent, God is the incomprehensible Creator existing outside of space and time and thus is unknowable and unsearchable. Neither by an act of our will nor by our own reasoning can we possibly come to understand God or experience Him personally. God wants us to seek to know Him, yet how can the finite possibly know and understand the infinite when our minds and thoughts are so far beneath His.....Another aspect of God’s transcendent nature that places Him beyond the reach of His creation is His holiness and His righteousness.
Its a word I needed to get to know here so as to save myself a lot of typing every time I use the word GOD so people are clear the GOD I talk about.
Posts: 19552
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 7:38 pm
(January 2, 2013 at 7:01 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: pocaracas Wrote:What does "God [...]exists Transcendental to the Universe" mean?
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-transcendent.html
To transcend means “to exist above and independent from; to rise above, surpass, succeed.” By this definition, God is the only truly transcendent Being. .......Being transcendent, God is both the unknown and unknowable, yet God continually seeks to reveal Himself to His creation, i.e., the unknown seeks to be known. Here is a paradox. Being transcendent, God is the incomprehensible Creator existing outside of space and time and thus is unknowable and unsearchable. Neither by an act of our will nor by our own reasoning can we possibly come to understand God or experience Him personally. God wants us to seek to know Him, yet how can the finite possibly know and understand the infinite when our minds and thoughts are so far beneath His.....Another aspect of God’s transcendent nature that places Him beyond the reach of His creation is His holiness and His righteousness.
Its a word I needed to get to know here so as to save myself a lot of typing every time I use the word GOD so people are clear the GOD I talk about.
I'm going to ask you something I end up asking every theist when I see them describing their divinity.
- How do you know all that? How has any person come to possess that knowledge about such a being?
Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 8:35 pm
(January 2, 2013 at 7:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote: (January 2, 2013 at 7:01 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: http://www.gotquestions.org/God-transcendent.html
To transcend means “to exist above and independent from; to rise above, surpass, succeed.” By this definition, God is the only truly transcendent Being. .......Being transcendent, God is both the unknown and unknowable, yet God continually seeks to reveal Himself to His creation, i.e., the unknown seeks to be known. Here is a paradox. Being transcendent, God is the incomprehensible Creator existing outside of space and time and thus is unknowable and unsearchable. Neither by an act of our will nor by our own reasoning can we possibly come to understand God or experience Him personally. God wants us to seek to know Him, yet how can the finite possibly know and understand the infinite when our minds and thoughts are so far beneath His.....Another aspect of God’s transcendent nature that places Him beyond the reach of His creation is His holiness and His righteousness.
Its a word I needed to get to know here so as to save myself a lot of typing every time I use the word GOD so people are clear the GOD I talk about.
I'm going to ask you something I end up asking every theist when I see them describing their divinity.
- How do you know all that? How has any person come to possess that knowledge about such a being? The answer you will get is that God is beyond our comprehension and that all we can ever know about God is what God reveals to us through certain individuals he chooses to use for the purpose. God is the big boss and he gives the information on a need to know basis as God defines it not us.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 8:42 pm
By what metric do you sort out the wheat from the chaff, the individuals who actually are being used for that purpose (interesting implications for free will, but I digress) as distinct from the 'false prophets'?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 8:45 pm
(January 2, 2013 at 8:42 pm)Stimbo Wrote: By what metric do you sort out the wheat from the chaff, the individuals who actually are being used for that purpose (interesting implications for free will, but I digress) as distinct from the 'false prophets'?
Good point and i'm sure we can cover that in another thread soon enough I am interested in your thoughts on the primary thread topic.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 8:52 pm
(This post was last modified: January 2, 2013 at 8:52 pm by Cyberman.)
Actually it was more of a question than a point. That curly symbol standing on a dot at the end was supposed to be a clue, you see. If it's too inconvenient to attempt an answer right now, that's fine, but please recognise that it's going to impact on our perception of your honesty to bring up a point and then appear to evade a straightforward and direct question about it.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 2254
Threads: 85
Joined: January 24, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 9:11 pm
(This post was last modified: January 2, 2013 at 9:11 pm by Welsh cake.)
(January 2, 2013 at 5:06 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Dawkin's then I think realises the implication of his statement and immediately tries to say but if we can't find life it doesn't mean its not out there as it is probably to spread out for us to ever find. Surprisingly close to what we as Theists say about God but you won't take from us.
The first thing that popped into my mind was would GOD be in the category of a stupendeously improbable theory? so until life is found elsewhere? How in the fuck did you just do that? 0____o
I have autism and ADHD, and yet even I don't change the subject with so many non-sequiturs, initially starting from theories on life on other planets, to discussing A BLOODY MAGICAL GOD, in one opening thread on the atheism board, as you just did.
If you want to talk about the Drake equation, the Fermi paradox, the Goldilocks principle, the Rare Earth hypothesis compared to its contrary principle of mediocrity/Copernican principle, then we're all ears.
Leave your magic man out of this, or start another more specific thread in the more appropriate sub-forum.
Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 9:20 pm
(January 2, 2013 at 8:52 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Actually it was more of a question than a point. That curly symbol standing on a dot at the end was supposed to be a clue, you see. If it's too inconvenient to attempt an answer right now, that's fine, but please recognise that it's going to impact on our perception of your honesty to bring up a point and then appear to evade a straightforward and direct question about it.
Point taken and if you start a thread on that question when i'm not quite so stretched on the threads i've already committed to at moment I will get into the question as best I can.
so humour me for now and direct you intellect to the primary thread as I want to see how it evolves when some of the bigger guns get involved. I'm including you in the bigger guns category.
ps. even now i should be in bed  hock:
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 9:25 pm
Humour me on the subject you raised and I might be tempted to humour you on a subject below my interest threshold. I can't think of any way to say this that won't come across as rude and snarky, but your state of stretchiness is your own problem and easy to address.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 9:28 pm
(January 2, 2013 at 9:11 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: (January 2, 2013 at 5:06 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Dawkin's then I think realises the implication of his statement and immediately tries to say but if we can't find life it doesn't mean its not out there as it is probably to spread out for us to ever find. Surprisingly close to what we as Theists say about God but you won't take from us.
The first thing that popped into my mind was would GOD be in the category of a stupendeously improbable theory? so until life is found elsewhere? How in the fuck did you just do that? 0____o
I have autism and ADHD, and yet even I don't change the subject with so many non-sequiturs, initially starting from theories on life on other planets, to discussing A BLOODY MAGICAL GOD, in one opening thread on the atheism board, as you just did.
If you want to talk about the Drake equation, the Fermi paradox, the Goldilocks principle, the Rare Earth hypothesis compared to its contrary principle of mediocrity/Copernican principle, then we're all ears.
Leave your magic man out of this, or start another more specific thread in the more appropriate sub-forum.
I'm not as smart as you or as well read by the look of all those topics you have listed so i can't tell if you've given me an answer or a smoke screen to hide the fact you haven't. I did wonder where to post it but in the end a discussion by 2 of the worlds best known athiests that may be giving a possible point for Theists to engage athiests with didn't seem totally out of place in this section of the forum. As i'm not a veteran of forum use if it isn't then I hope a moderator moves it.
If you have answered my questions then i missed it and would appreciate you simplifying it for me.
|
