(January 15, 2010 at 7:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: St Thomas, I believe, described observance of God as knowledge of what isn't rather than what 'is' God. That is what the abrahamic religions are based upon.
Already your position of reason fails.
Besides this "God" name one thing which you define by what it is not. Saying what something is NOT does not describe what that something is, so I fail to see how my position fails.
Let us take another concept invented by man: unicorns. Unicorns are not horses. The also are not visible or detectable.
Now that the unicorn is defined by what it is not, any attribute can by applied without it necessarily being wrong. There is no reason to suppose that the attributes applied are correct, however. Unless the unicorn has been observed, applying attributes and then looking for them (or just plain applying attributes and saying looking for it is futile [but it's still there]) is meaningless.
Live and love life
Liberty and justice for all
Liberty and justice for all