Omniscience Argument Revisited

[henryp]

You're not arguing against what I said.

But the point is that if you cannot infer God's existence because he conforms to none of the concepts humans encapsulate in words, then he is a nonsensical concept. It's functionally equivalent to saying:

"There is something I can't describe that exists in a way I can't describe; I can't even really say it 'exists' because it is beyond what I can describe."

See why that just reduces theism to tatters?

I'm certainly not defending theism. I'm just saying that things throughout history and still, exist outside our understanding. It makes sense, that since gods are frequently used as a place holder until the knowledge is found, that they would also exist outside our understanding. It's by design, because they are supposed to play by different rules so we can use them to explain things we can't explain.

While I think the conclusion of a God is nonsensical, I wouldn't say the concept of something which we can't describe based on our limited understanding is non-sensical. I look at the origins of the universe, and how they work with my understanding of time and space. They do not play well together. I assume either my understanding of time and space are flawed, or there exists something else that beyond my understanding that made things happen the way they did.

The massive difference of course, is that we know some explanation exists for the origins of the universe, whereas there is no reasonable reason to think there is an omniscient God.

I think Indescribable God is a necessity for modern Theism, because the desire for Theism is to have a bunch of things that we have no evidence exist to exist. Life after death, universal morality, single purpose, and stuff like that.