What could be true from his statement (which he has sorely misconstrued), is that one can concieve of their being something beyond what one does not know.
This is intellectual honesty, and long before The Bible existed, it is this unavoidable truth that man has tried to satisfy with Gods. This is true for both believers and non-believers alike, whether they recognize it or not.
If by God, he means "that which we do not know", I would be inclined to agree. I would not personally use God in this context because there seems to be more accurate words that can be strung together to articulate this notion without being intentionally misunderstood with the use of the word "God".
When we look at his argument closer, we can see that he does not view God as "That which we do not know", because he is making specific knowedge claims about this God which cannot be substantiated from any one of the countless religious doctrines that have spanned mankind's existance, all attempting to do the same thing.
We are left to conclude that he has recognized that there exists "that which can not be known", but has decided himself to ignore this truth, and replace it with God.
One can pretend that they have all the answers, but why would one insist on ignoring their own ignorance? Why would one, as this fellow is, choose to deny his apparent ignorance?
The problem is not as he has depicted it that "All Recognize God and choose to deny him", but rather a deeper issue that gave rise to God being used as a pacifier in the first place.
We have come full circle to discover that this individual is choosing to pretend to know, that which he doesn't know, and is soliciting a pacifier for something that he is in no position to offer.
This argument has backfired.
This is intellectual honesty, and long before The Bible existed, it is this unavoidable truth that man has tried to satisfy with Gods. This is true for both believers and non-believers alike, whether they recognize it or not.
If by God, he means "that which we do not know", I would be inclined to agree. I would not personally use God in this context because there seems to be more accurate words that can be strung together to articulate this notion without being intentionally misunderstood with the use of the word "God".
When we look at his argument closer, we can see that he does not view God as "That which we do not know", because he is making specific knowedge claims about this God which cannot be substantiated from any one of the countless religious doctrines that have spanned mankind's existance, all attempting to do the same thing.
We are left to conclude that he has recognized that there exists "that which can not be known", but has decided himself to ignore this truth, and replace it with God.
One can pretend that they have all the answers, but why would one insist on ignoring their own ignorance? Why would one, as this fellow is, choose to deny his apparent ignorance?
The problem is not as he has depicted it that "All Recognize God and choose to deny him", but rather a deeper issue that gave rise to God being used as a pacifier in the first place.
We have come full circle to discover that this individual is choosing to pretend to know, that which he doesn't know, and is soliciting a pacifier for something that he is in no position to offer.
This argument has backfired.
