Hell and God cant Co-exist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If God exists in such a way that it is beyond comprehension, then I don't know how you know that or how you can begin to make such claims about God's capabilities if you yourself can't comprehend what those capabilities are, or how you can believe you know anything about God if it is entirely unknowable...what difference is there between incomprehensible and incoherent?

Have you ever heard of the difference between positive theology and negative theology? There is a distinction between existence (that something is) and essence (what something is). People can know that God is, from various logical demonstrations, without have a full understanding of what God is. Such is the case for many things. Since the dawn of time, people knew that the sun existed without knowing that it was essentially a nuclear explosion contained by gravity. That's the positive theology side. Negative theology starts with the premise that God's essence is incomprehensible, but that it is at least possible to know what God is not such as not limited, not changing, not a composite, etc.

[ApeNotKillApe]

While a chicken can't "understand" a human, a human is both observable and beholden to the same natural laws as the chicken.

Sure, but that's not the argument I was making. I never said chickens are exactly to us as we are to God. I was simply showing that it's not unreasonable to say we don't have the mental capacity to understand certain concepts pertaining to a higher being, since it is the case with the creatures in our own world. 

Also I don't know how not making sense is a good argument for God's existence.

Hm? I didn't realize I was giving any argument for God's existence, much less using "not making sense" as one lol. Merely trying to explain what we have in mind when we use the term omnipresent in reference to God.

If not an argument for its existence, a descriptor of its nature if it does, and what you described it as is incomprehensible, which I've argued as not only incomprehensible but incoherent.

[Catholic_Lady]

If God exists in such a way that it is beyond comprehension, then I don't know how you know that or how you can begin to make such claims about God's capabilities if you yourself can't comprehend what those capabilities are, or how you can believe you know anything about God if it is entirely unknowable...what difference is there between incomprehensible and incoherent?

Have you ever heard of the difference between positive theology and negative theology? There is a distinction between existence (that something is) and essence (what something is). People can know that God is, from various logical demonstrations, without have a full understanding of what God is. Such is the case for many things. Since the dawn of time, people knew that the sun existed without knowing that it was essentially a nuclear explosion contained by gravity. That's the positive theology side. Negative theology starts with the premise that God's essence is incomprehensible, but that it is at least possible to know what God is not such as not limited, not changing, not a composite, etc.

^This. Just because we don't understand everything about God, or even have the mental capacity to comprehend everything about His nature, doesn't mean it therefore makes no sense to believe in Him at all, or that we can't understand some things.

[madog]

Sometimes I find it humorous to watch the threads get created on topics that have easy answers and then watch all the comments accumulate like something profound has been said. Most times I do not.

To me it just shows that they haven't really thought about it (whatever 'it' is) and really don't want to either. It's just a way for them to make themselves feel superior to believers. They pretend that atheism is the only rational approach then proceed to put their stupidity on display.

I think you are right we can't really think about  (whatever 'it' is)? The interpretations are so vast, not only against all the different Christian denominations, but also against all the interpretations across the ages, which is 2000 years just for the New Testament 

Even if I decided to try and learn all the denominations, sub denominations and then all the personal beliefs intertwined, by the time I had got anywhere the interpretations would have changed again to pander to new more inquiring minds to try keep the fairy stories going.

It really doesn't matter what the fiction book you believe in states as the church's adapt begrudgingly anytime one of the falsies  loses enough traction to threaten the collection box.

It seems God doesn't speak to the preachers but the bank manager.

Dog

[Neo-Scholastic]

Thanks. I suspect he's got me on ignore because he doesn't like being exposed as an idiot. Sorry, CL, lately I've been losing patience because the so-called rational skeptics have been trying to avoid seeing their objections be decimated. I've debunked their "no evidence" card three times on separate threads by listing the clear and obvious evidence. Not one atheist has even attempted to respond.

[brewer]

I seem to remember something about pigeons....

You've had millennia to think this shit through, yet all evidence points to a continual invention.

Continual invention implies adding new things. I do not think that is the case. 

Couple of reasons some doctrines might have changed over the past 2000 years:

• Advances in philosophy in general and philosophy of religion specifically.
  
• Advances in natural theology and its importance.
  
• Advances in our understanding of the universe and our place in it. 
  
• Decentralization of theological thought. Now we have many more sects and denominations that bring out variations in thought and prompt reexamination of ideas.
  

There are some doctrines that cannot be changed lest Christianity ceases to be Christianity (for example the doctrine of Salvation). The one under scrutiny in this thread probably hasn't changed much other than to fill in what it means and/or to articulate it in more sophisticated language.

These all sound like advancements from man, not of religion or new input from god. So as man advances, the belief(s) is skewed more and more, therefore the "many more sects and denominations" schisms.

From my outside position the "many beliefs" seems to create more problems for man than it solves. Have not wars, exterminations and genocide occurred because of schism (diversity and diversion) in the one god belief? If not out and out killing then a creation of a system of classes where one is held up as the most correct and that class inflicts pain and degradation on the lower classes due to their diversity in belief?

Can you explain why an all powerful creator would remain silent and allow this to occur? Why has there been nothing in the 2000 years addressing this? (your parameter, I don't think there was ever anything, apparently the thought is that there was something before) Is this some strange god test to see who gets it right? Or maybe the one that out last the rest is the correct one? (don't forget there is still killing in gods name all across the earth to this day) Or could it be that this is just a man made fantasy? A fantasy used for manipulation?

[ApeNotKillApe]

If God exists in such a way that it is beyond comprehension, then I don't know how you know that or how you can begin to make such claims about God's capabilities if you yourself can't comprehend what those capabilities are, or how you can believe you know anything about God if it is entirely unknowable...what difference is there between incomprehensible and incoherent?

Have you ever heard of the difference between positive theology and negative theology? There is a distinction between existence (that something is) and essence (what something is). People can know that God is, from various logical demonstrations, without have a full understanding of what God is. Such is the case for many things. Since the dawn of time, people knew that the sun existed without knowing that it was essentially a nuclear explosion contained by gravity. That's the positive theology side. Negative theology starts with the premise that God's essence is incomprehensible, but that it is at least possible to know what God is not such as not limited, not changing, not a composite, etc.

Thanks. I suspect he's got me on ignore because he doesn't like being exposed as an idiot. Sorry, CL, lately I've been losing patience because the so-called rational skeptics have been trying to avoid seeing their objections be decimated. I've debunked their "no evidence" card three times on separate threads by listing the clear and obvious evidence. Not one atheist has even attempted to respond.

We do think highly of ourselves don't we?

People knew that the sun exists because they could see it, and before they knew the exact nature of the sun, they could still describe the thing in at least some respects; what it looked like, the pattern it followed. The cosmic person is unobserved and undefined in any sense, to the extent that any two people who "know" the thing to exist won't agree on what it is, even when they believe in the same culture specific version of the cosmic person.

[Catholic_Lady]

Thanks. I suspect he's got me on ignore because he doesn't like being exposed as an idiot. Sorry, CL, lately I've been losing patience because the so-called rational skeptics have been trying to avoid seeing their objections be decimated. I've debunked their "no evidence" card three times on separate threads by listing the clear and obvious evidence. Not one atheist has even attempted to respond.

It's probably better not to call people idiots. Sorry no one responded to your stuff... that's frustrating. 

What I don't like is when a thread is started, making a claim about a Christian belief, and then when one of us chimes in to clear it up and explain what our views actually are, some people just start poking fun and being dismissive rather than trying to understand and form legitimate rebukes for a legitimate discussion. 

I'm not exactly sure what exactly some people hope to accomplish by acting like that. There are a lot of people who have different beliefs than I do (Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc), but I have 0 impulse to poke fun of their beliefs or to be a pompous, sarcastic asshole to them about it. It's one thing to discuss and challenge their beliefs with mutual respect. Sitting there and being a prick about it is entirely different, and I just cannot understand the mentality of people who are like that. When it comes to other people's beliefs, I generally have one condition: don't be an asshole. Other than that, I couldn't care less whether some stranger on the internet believes in God or Allah or Zeus or no one. That some people are so perturbed by it and feel they have to be dicks to people who believe different, boggles my mind.   

/rand over. (I've been having a lot of those)

[madog]

  That some people are so perturbed by it and feel they have to be dicks to people who believe different, boggles my mind.   

/rand over. (I've been having a lot of those)

I promise I will treat everyone with respect, but I do note I come from a privileged position being in the UK.

The dark days of persecution of atheists has virtually disappeared here and for several decades.

I don't think that can be said about the US .... some of your evangelists I have seen are pretty radical and frightening .... from stories I have heard the admission of atheism can lead to loss of jobs, children excluded from school activities, etc etc.

So with your (misplaced) Christian understanding it should be expected that some atheists can be like kids in a sweet shop, out of the glare of the more radical evangelists , and do have grounds for some apprehension when they are followed into the only refuge   

Dog.

[Catholic_Lady]

Continual invention implies adding new things. I do not think that is the case. 

Couple of reasons some doctrines might have changed over the past 2000 years:

• Advances in philosophy in general and philosophy of religion specifically.
  
• Advances in natural theology and its importance.
  
• Advances in our understanding of the universe and our place in it. 
  
• Decentralization of theological thought. Now we have many more sects and denominations that bring out variations in thought and prompt reexamination of ideas.
  

There are some doctrines that cannot be changed lest Christianity ceases to be Christianity (for example the doctrine of Salvation). The one under scrutiny in this thread probably hasn't changed much other than to fill in what it means and/or to articulate it in more sophisticated language.

These all sound like advancements from man, not of religion or new input from god. So as man advances, the belief(s) is skewed more and more, therefore the "many more sects and denominations" schisms.

From my outside position the "many beliefs" seems to create more problems for man than it solves. Have not wars, exterminations and genocide occurred because of schism (diversity and diversion) in the one god belief? If not out and out killing then a creation of a system of classes where one is held up as the most correct and that class inflicts pain and degradation on the lower classes due to their diversity in belief?

Can you explain why an all powerful creator would remain silent and allow this to occur? Why has there been nothing in the 2000 years addressing this? (your parameter, I don't think there was ever anything, apparently the thought is that there was something before) Is this some strange god test to see who gets it right? Or maybe the one that out last the rest is the correct one? (don't forget there is still killing in gods name all across the earth to this day) Or could it be that this is just a man made fantasy? A fantasy used for manipulation?

I don't think the fact that people fight over religious beliefs is reason to discredit God belief in general. People can have a tendency to fight over things that they are passionate about. The human condition is not perfect, and if we're not fighting over religion, it's over land, politics, race, culture, etc. Our country was built on these types of wars. 

I would argue that "the creator" has not remained silent. Jesus taught us a lot about humility and peace. Most Christian denominations believe that wars are wrong unless they are necessary to save more lives (like a defensive type war), as that is what aligns with the teachings of Christ. The fact that many people have failed many times, and I'm sure will continue to fail, is entirely on people. We do not believe God is a micromanager who intervenes on that level.