God is above conventional reason

[Kayenneh]

No. This is exactly what happens when humans are left to read the Word of God.

No, this is what happens when ignorant men write for other ignorant men, claiming that they speak with the voice of a god. If your god was a sensible one, he would have forced his followers to write it in absolutes, with no room for interpretation.

[Angrboda]

That means absolutely none of your shit holds any water. The bible (maybe that's God's idea of a funny story, or a Zen koan? You don't know, because you can't know the mind of God, you can't even make sense of him), Jesus Christ (perhaps God just came down to put his paw prints on Mary Magdalene's hot bawdy, and this was the way he thought of accomplishing that goal; it worked for Zeus, why not for Yahweh?), and the traditions of the Holy Roman Catholic church (do they have reasoning above that of other men? No, they do not). You've just exercised the nuclear option, babe, and blown up your own God in the process.

How do you reach this conclusion? We can interpet the Bible, we can understand that there is a God. But when we try to put man-made techniques to try to proof the existence of God is when he is above our reasoning.

The more aspects of God that you claim to understand, the less your claim that he is above conventional reason holds (because you are apprehending him through conventional reason). But the kicker is, if God is any above conventional reason, then nothing you claim to understand is defensible, as how far above conventional reason he is, and on which parts, is therefore beyond your capacity to know. In the immortal words of Donald Rumsfield, there are the things we know, and that we know we know; these are the known knowns; then there are the things we know that we don't know, and these are the known unknowns; then there are the things that we don't know, and don't even know that we don't know them; these are the unknown unknowns. Since part of God lies in the range of the unknown unknowns, and the very boundary between us and the unknown unknowns is itself unknown, it's impossible to say with any certainty that this or that bit of doctrine is a result of something above the water line in the known, rather than below it, in the unknown unknowns. And by your own principle, we can't "reason out" which things about God are knowable and known, and which are not. Therefore, the inclusion of this principle, that God is above conventional reason, puts your entire theology and faith in quick sand, with no rope to pull you out.


Now, I think I'm done explaining what is a rather simple and obvious principle to you. Have fun debating the rest of these trolls good people.

One last thing. Some Hindus like myself have a saying. "All is Maya." All is illusion. Nothing in this world is as it appears. Feel free to refute that, after you're done refuting the Buddhist argument which you've conveniently skipped.

[catfish]

No. This is exactly what happens when humans are left to read the Word of God.

No, this is what happens when ignorant men write for other ignorant men, claiming that they speak with the voice of a god. If your god was a sensible one, he would have forced his followers to write it in absolutes, with no room for interpretation.

Ezekiel 22:27-29
King James Version (KJV)

27 Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain.

28 And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken.

29 The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.

[Kayenneh]

Catty, that's not in ancient Greek, so it's tainted/cheery-picking/you're not a True ChristianTM/it's taken out of context

[catfish]

LOL!
Guess that wasn't absolute enough for ya even though it agreed with your post...

I don't suppose you're going to retract your statement as your no longer have proof?
.

[Simon Moon]

It's both. Why couldn't it be both? The Bible, has we both have mentioned, has been heavily revised over the years. Is it not possible that this was the Word of God, until it was revised as man?

I acknowledge that the Bible today is not the Bible from thousands of years ago, but I also acknowledge the main points made by the Bible are still the same. But you are right, but are wrong about me having to choose between those two options.

Then how do you know what parts are a reliable reflection of 'God' and which parts aren't?

What heuristic do you utilize in order to figure out that the parts you think are the main points made in the 'original' Bible that are still the same?

Isn't interesting that there are over 30,000 Christian sects because no one can figure out which are the main points? And you have a method to figure that out where millions of Christians have failed before you. How convenient...

[paulpablo]

i havent concluded that there is definitely no god by logical reasoning.

The logical reasoning part is what tells you that every single religion/cult on this earth is full of lies, illogical teaching and hypoctrical manners. And that there are about 1000 of these cults probably more at any given time on this earth all basically preaching the same type of thing.

If one group of people tell you theres a talking snake a man with a boat who fit every species of animal on board have a book with several other unbelievable things inside and they tell you theres also a god, it isnt the god part thats the most unbelivable thing its the talking snake, moses, noahs ark, the whole adam and eve story itself.

Not only this but the televangelists, the pope and the general greedy money grabbers which the religious organisations are full of.

No one knows if there is a god or not and i dont disbelieve in god because of logical reasoning but the main question would be which part of logical reasoning has led you to believe your religion is correct regardless of there being a god or not ?

[catfish]

Then how do you know what parts are a reliable reflection of 'God' and which parts aren't?

What heuristic do you utilize in order to figure out that the parts you think are the main points made in the 'original' Bible that are still the same?

Isn't interesting that there are over 30,000 Christian sects because no one can figure out which are the main points? And you have a method to figure that out where millions of Christians have failed before you. How convenient...

You figure it out for yourself...

That the good thing about it, it tells you to make up your own mind. Anyone who tells you that you must believe in the Bible or believe a certain way is actually going against what is written there... (your interpretation may vary)
.

[Something completely different]

But it was scientific reason and human reasoning itself, that gave us medicine, democracy and wealth.
Whilest your church burned people alive who examined copernican theory.

So? That has nothing to do with God.

You are the one who claimed that god a by definition all perfect and all knowing thing was beyond all human understanding.
Therefor trying to comprehend "god" was impossible with human reasoning.

I made a clear comparison of what human reasoning gave us and what your god gave us so far.

The conclusion is, if he was beyond understanding (which he isnt) he wasnt worth understanding because our reasoning gave us more than your invisble friend who doesnt want to be understood.

[Angrboda]

Then how do you know what parts are a reliable reflection of 'God' and which parts aren't?

What heuristic do you utilize in order to figure out that the parts you think are the main points made in the 'original' Bible that are still the same?

Isn't interesting that there are over 30,000 Christian sects because no one can figure out which are the main points? And you have a method to figure that out where millions of Christians have failed before you. How convenient...

You figure it out for yourself...

That the good thing about it, it tells you to make up your own mind. Anyone who tells you that you must believe in the Bible or believe a certain way is actually going against what is written there... (your interpretation may vary)

Ah, yes, circular reasoning at its finest. I know the bible is true in this way because it says so right here in this part of the bible.


I've been tempted to use circular logic myself at times, but I'm pretty sure the Christians own the patent on it, and that they have an army of patent lawyers just waiting to swoop in and defend their intellectual property.