RE: God is above conventional reason
February 18, 2013 at 7:34 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2013 at 7:37 am by Ryantology.)
I don't recall any mention of God being outside of time and space, that he created time, anywhere in the Bible.
Frankly, I see no proof that God is supposed to be supernatural or beyond the capacity of humans to understand, and I furthermore see no proof that people living in Biblical times considered God to be outside of nature, hence why God is a constant, actively-interfering presence in their lives. The 'supernatural' element of God only starts to manifest when our understanding begins to chip away at natural explanations for God and theologians, refusing to understand that this means the whole thing was a silly lie, invent a safe haven for God that is intentionally nonsensical, so that God will always have at least one gap to exist in forever.
"Knowing" God was no concern of people who were far too ignorant to know how weather worked, or what shooting stars were, or what caused disease and famine, so they considered every example of these things to be direct intervention by their vengeful God. By the time the 18th century rolled around, our understanding of the world around us had matured to the point where learned minds thought of God as a being who made the universe, set it in motion, and left it alone except maybe for a few choice interventions, depending on who you asked. We knew enough about weather and astronomy to understand that there was a self-sustaining process at work. A hundred years or so later, we discovered that disease was caused not by angry sky daddies, but by tiny microbes (and, isn't it funny how the Bible makes absolutely no mention of the oldest and most abundant life forms on Earth?). Now, of course, the whole story is in danger because we're inching closer to figuring out how the universe really began, how life really began, and what makes the whole thing work. We've filled in so many gaps in which a natural God could exist that the modern theist will just place God outside nature, because realms of imaginary delusion are not subject to critical examination. For some reason, this is a notion which we are supposed to think of as plausible.
Frankly, I see no proof that God is supposed to be supernatural or beyond the capacity of humans to understand, and I furthermore see no proof that people living in Biblical times considered God to be outside of nature, hence why God is a constant, actively-interfering presence in their lives. The 'supernatural' element of God only starts to manifest when our understanding begins to chip away at natural explanations for God and theologians, refusing to understand that this means the whole thing was a silly lie, invent a safe haven for God that is intentionally nonsensical, so that God will always have at least one gap to exist in forever.
"Knowing" God was no concern of people who were far too ignorant to know how weather worked, or what shooting stars were, or what caused disease and famine, so they considered every example of these things to be direct intervention by their vengeful God. By the time the 18th century rolled around, our understanding of the world around us had matured to the point where learned minds thought of God as a being who made the universe, set it in motion, and left it alone except maybe for a few choice interventions, depending on who you asked. We knew enough about weather and astronomy to understand that there was a self-sustaining process at work. A hundred years or so later, we discovered that disease was caused not by angry sky daddies, but by tiny microbes (and, isn't it funny how the Bible makes absolutely no mention of the oldest and most abundant life forms on Earth?). Now, of course, the whole story is in danger because we're inching closer to figuring out how the universe really began, how life really began, and what makes the whole thing work. We've filled in so many gaps in which a natural God could exist that the modern theist will just place God outside nature, because realms of imaginary delusion are not subject to critical examination. For some reason, this is a notion which we are supposed to think of as plausible.
