Strong Atheism

[Confused Ape]

If a god is 'beyond understanding' then it's right to question how the believer has any knowledge about it.

Which puts the burden of proof on the believer.

Also if the idea that a god can't be understood comes as a response to a challenge, it's most likely a shifting of the goalposts, a defence mechanism in order to avoid criticism.

A defence mechanism to shift the goalposts isn't the same thing as discussing this particular concept of God if it's the subject of a topic.

When faced by such defences, I often do well by remembering that I don't necessarily have to tackle each definition individually if a meta-analysis would bypass obfuscation.

I take the attitude that every definition of God has to be disproved before we can be 100% certain that no definition is right.

There's a topic called "Is There A Real You?" in the philosophy forum. This is the last post I've made in it so far -

http://atheistforums.org/thread-25987-po...#pid667813

I'm talking about what is called the Observer Self but in the context of psychology. Trying to describe what the Observer Self actually is comes out a bit like that description of Brahman but anyone can test the idea of an Observer Self out if they want to. My personal opinion is that the concept of a God who can't be understood is the result of misinterpreting an ordinary brain function. It would then be up to the believer to prove otherwise.

I'm now going to be evil and suggest that God is a symbol of the universe which is becoming conscious of itself. The Observer Self is a property of this universe.