God cannot know everything. Carnal love, reproduction or sex

[Greatest I am]

God cannot know everything. Carnal love, reproduction or sex.

Believers are constantly saying impossible things of God. They make many definitive statement of God’s attribute while claiming that he is unfathomable, unknowable, immutable and works in mysterious ways. These are clear contradictions and un-provable truths that no judge could or would accept. Yet believers think the atheist should just swallow these lies whole. And when atheists do not, believers get into their condescending mode; treat the non-believer like a child; while it is believers themselves who are action in a non-adult way, ---- led by fantasy, ------- when atheists will just not accept something unproven as truth.

Whenever the discussions of God get into explaining his irrational, immoral or strange attributes, believers deny it through evasion. They do so by hiding behind some evasive statement or other. These include silly irrational or unknowable adjectives and phrases like; God works in mysterious ways; God can do whatever he wants; God owns us; God does not have to follow his laws because they are for man and not himself; God’s action may look immoral but it is because he knows so much more than we do. Discussion end with the believer chanting one of these mantras of self-deception. Almost like a parent telling his child that it is that way because it is that way and expecting the child to accept this condescending statement and evasive lie. Believers are not honest enough to just say, I don’t know.

Anyone with experience in debated with believers expects these yet they are not applicable or relevant to moral issues. Regardless, believers use them to justify God’s immoral action and to explain away attributes that are impossible to apply to God.

God is not corporeal. He is immaterial. He cannot reproduce true. He cannot have sex. He cannot know the effects on our psyches from chemical reactions that trigger human sexual activity and desire.

Knowing this, any moral person will know that God should not dictate to man how to handle sexual matters. God cannot know what the feelings and emotions are that drive sex in man and thus it is immoral for him to demand that we do as he wishes. Because of this, he also has no right to punish man for ignoring his unlearned dictates of issues that he himself cannot possibly fathom.

There are likely many things that God cannot know. I have chosen three that I think are obvious. Carnal love, reproduction and the emotions and physical feelings that go with sex.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

God cannot know everything. Carnal love, reproduction or sex.

Believers are constantly saying impossible things of God. They make many definitive statement of God’s attribute while claiming that he is unfathomable, unknowable, immutable and works in mysterious ways. These are clear contradictions and un-provable truths that no judge could or would accept. Yet believers think the atheist should just swallow these lies whole. And when atheists do not, believers get into their condescending mode; treat the non-believer like a child; while it is believers themselves who are action in a non-adult way, ---- led by fantasy, ------- when atheists will just not accept something unproven as truth.

Whenever the discussions of God get into explaining his irrational, immoral or strange attributes, believers deny it through evasion. They do so by hiding behind some evasive statement or other. These include silly irrational or unknowable adjectives and phrases like; God works in mysterious ways; God can do whatever he wants; God owns us; God does not have to follow his laws because they are for man and not himself; God’s action may look immoral but it is because he knows so much more than we do. Discussion end with the believer chanting one of these mantras of self-deception. Almost like a parent telling his child that it is that way because it is that way and expecting the child to accept this condescending statement and evasive lie. Believers are not honest enough to just say, I don’t know.

Anyone with experience in debated with believers expects these yet they are not applicable or relevant to moral issues. Regardless, believers use them to justify God’s immoral action and to explain away attributes that are impossible to apply to God.

God is not corporeal. He is immaterial. He cannot reproduce true. He cannot have sex. He cannot know the effects on our psyches from chemical reactions that trigger human sexual activity and desire.

Knowing this, any moral person will know that God should not dictate to man how to handle sexual matters. God cannot know what the feelings and emotions are that drive sex in man and thus it is immoral for him to demand that we do as he wishes. Because of this, he also has no right to punish man for ignoring his unlearned dictates of issues that he himself cannot possibly fathom.

There are likely many things that God cannot know. I have chosen three that I think are obvious. Carnal love, reproduction and the emotions and physical feelings that go with sex.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

If God is omni- potent, -scient,-present. Then god IS sex. God IS carnal knowledge. He is also flowers and dog shit. There is nothing that cannot be called god. There is no contradiction here.

Your God is just a evil little voyeur - what does he actually do?

[bobevenson]

All I can say is, God took 13.7 billion years to come up with this?

[chaz wyman]

All I can say is, God took 13.7 billion years to come up with this?

You are not obliged to believe in god you know.

[bobevenson]

All I can say is, God took 13.7 billion years to come up with this?

You are not obliged to believe in god you know.

It's just that I think I could have fucked things up this much in less time.

[adge]

[quote="Greatest I am"]God cannot know everything. Carnal love, reproduction or sex.

Believers are constantly saying impossible things of God. They make many definitive statement of God’s attribute while claiming that he is unfathomable, unknowable, immutable and works in mysterious ways. These are clear contradictions and un-provable truths that no judge could or would accept. Yet believers think the atheist should just swallow these lies whole. And when atheists do not, believers get into their condescending mode; treat the non-believer like a child; while it is believers themselves who are action in a non-adult way, ---- led by fantasy, ------- when atheists will just not accept something unproven as truth.

Whenever the discussions of God get into explaining his irrational, immoral or strange attributes, believers deny it through evasion. They do so by hiding behind some evasive statement or other. These include silly irrational or unknowable adjectives and phrases like; God works in mysterious ways; God can do whatever he wants; God owns us; God does not have to follow his laws because they are for man and not himself; God’s action may look immoral but it is because he knows so much more than we do. Discussion end with the believer chanting one of these mantras of self-deception. Almost like a parent telling his child that it is that way because it is that way and expecting the child to accept this condescending statement and evasive lie. Believers are not honest enough to just say, I don’t know.

Anyone with experience in debated with believers expects these yet they are not applicable or relevant to moral issues. Regardless, believers use them to justify God’s immoral action and to explain away attributes that are impossible to apply to God.

God is not corporeal. He is immaterial. He cannot reproduce true. He cannot have sex. He cannot know the effects on our psyches from chemical reactions that trigger human sexual activity and desire.

Knowing this, any moral person will know that God should not dictate to man how to handle sexual matters. God cannot know what the feelings and emotions are that drive sex in man and thus it is immoral for him to demand that we do as he wishes. Because of this, he also has no right to punish man for ignoring his unlearned dictates of issues that he himself cannot possibly fathom.

There are likely many things that God cannot know. I have chosen three that I think are obvious. Carnal love, reproduction and the emotions and physical feelings that go with sex.

In a sense you're asking too many questions, but i'll see if i can address some of your ideas, and i'll start by saying i don't believe in god.

On your point about god not being able to have sex, if Christ was god incarnate then he has felt the human desires you speak of. The idea of Christ as God incarnate was a fourth century Christian idea, but nonetheless was essentially about god showing solidarity with man. You may reject this notion of God, as post facto reasoning, but given that nearly all Christians do, your argument is somewhere upstream of Gods incarnation or indeed Christianity per se.
If god is ineffable why is his working in mysterious ways incoherent? In a sense you sound like a 1950's positivist,
but if there's nothing we can say about him, has more to do with language than god, if he exists.
God, if he exists, is not a fact of the world like the existence of the atom

[chaz wyman]

All I can say is, God took 13.7 billion years to come up with this?

You are not obliged to believe in god you know.

It's just that I think I could have fucked things up this much in less time.

I do not doubt that. Then why do you continue to believe in God?

[chaz wyman]

In a sense you're asking too many questions, but i'll see if i can address some of your ideas, and i'll start by saying i don't believe in god.

On your point about god not being able to have sex, if Christ was god incarnate then he has felt the human desires you speak of. The idea of Christ as God incarnate was a fourth century Christian idea, but nonetheless was essentially about god showing solidarity with man. You may reject this notion of God, as post facto reasoning, but given that nearly all Christians do, your argument is somewhere upstream of Gods incarnation or indeed Christianity per se.
If god is ineffable why is his working in mysterious ways incoherent? In a sense you sound like a 1950's positivist,
but if there's nothing we can say about him, has more to do with language than god, if he exists.
God, if he exists, is not a fact of the world like the existence of the atom

Two things.
1) Why is the fact of god's existence not on a par with all other questions of existence. And what give you the right to make a statement like that?
2) The idea that Jesus was a man, was the dominant theory until the 4thC. There was a far more reasonable idea of the reality of Jesus' existence until the Council of Nicaea outlawed common sense, demanded that Christ was God, and inserted extra stuff in the Gospels to back it up. The twisted versions of Christianity that now pertain are an amalgam of Roman mysticism and Greek cosmology; where the idea that people could be deified was common place.

[bobevenson]

Why do you continue to believe in God?

It all depends on what you mean by believing in God. All religions except the Church of Ouzo are worthless scams perpetrated by con artists on a superstitious public. There is no Billy Graham heaven or hell or afterlife of any kind. But as it says in Rev. 17:17 (a description of the beast in chapter and verse), "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." I have been guided by that God to write "The Ouzo Prophecy," O my brothers in tribulation.

[adge]

In a sense you're asking too many questions, but i'll see if i can address some of your ideas, and i'll start by saying i don't believe in god.

On your point about god not being able to have sex, if Christ was god incarnate then he has felt the human desires you speak of. The idea of Christ as God incarnate was a fourth century Christian idea, but nonetheless was essentially about god showing solidarity with man. You may reject this notion of God, as post facto reasoning, but given that nearly all Christians do, your argument is somewhere upstream of Gods incarnation or indeed Christianity per se.
If god is ineffable why is his working in mysterious ways incoherent? In a sense you sound like a 1950's positivist,
but if there's nothing we can say about him, has more to do with language than god, if he exists.
God, if he exists, is not a fact of the world like the existence of the atom

Two things.
1) Why is the fact of god's existence not on a par with all other questions of existence. And what give you the right to make a statement like that?
2) The idea that Jesus was a man, was the dominant theory until the 4thC. There was a far more reasonable idea of the reality of Jesus' existence until the Council of Nicaea outlawed common sense, demanded that Christ was God, and inserted extra stuff in the Gospels to back it up. The twisted versions of Christianity that now pertain are an amalgam of Roman mysticism and Greek cosmology; where the idea that people could be deified was common place.

You're fetishising rights again chaz, no need-try really hard and bet you can use a sentence without the word.

OK, question 1
Gods existence isn't an existence in the sense of the keyboard you're hoping to type a repost to this post on. Ever heard of the word 'transcendence'? to equate god with some aspect of reality is to profoundly misunderstand the notion of transcendence, or a deity isn't another piece of the world.
That's not to say god exists or i believe that god exists, but rather if he did we'd be mistaken in thinking he was just some bigger part of the world.

Question 2
This is really easy, and ostensibly depends on whether you believe in Christ as divine or man.
The political reality of Nicaea is neither here nor there, if jesus was the son of god then the Nicaean creed conclusion was a kind of attractor to that ultimate reality, one fashioned by the almighty. The fact that the conclusion of Nicaea was rooted in historical and political circumstance is simply god acting through circumstance to proclaim his truth.
Of course 'The idea that Jesus was a man, was the dominant theory until the 4thC' he was after-all a man, it's not some profound revelation you observe, but the everyday reality of the time.
If i were a Christian i would simply counter by saying it took 4th century divine inspiration to illuminate the truth of Christ's entity.
I might say i'm not a Christian or believe in God, but i find many of the arguments on this thread as predictable as they are facile.

[chaz wyman]

In a sense you're asking too many questions, but i'll see if i can address some of your ideas, and i'll start by saying i don't believe in god.

On your point about god not being able to have sex, if Christ was god incarnate then he has felt the human desires you speak of. The idea of Christ as God incarnate was a fourth century Christian idea, but nonetheless was essentially about god showing solidarity with man. You may reject this notion of God, as post facto reasoning, but given that nearly all Christians do, your argument is somewhere upstream of Gods incarnation or indeed Christianity per se.
If god is ineffable why is his working in mysterious ways incoherent? In a sense you sound like a 1950's positivist,
but if there's nothing we can say about him, has more to do with language than god, if he exists.
God, if he exists, is not a fact of the world like the existence of the atom

Two things.
1) Why is the fact of god's existence not on a par with all other questions of existence. And what give you the right to make a statement like that?
2) The idea that Jesus was a man, was the dominant theory until the 4thC. There was a far more reasonable idea of the reality of Jesus' existence until the Council of Nicaea outlawed common sense, demanded that Christ was God, and inserted extra stuff in the Gospels to back it up. The twisted versions of Christianity that now pertain are an amalgam of Roman mysticism and Greek cosmology; where the idea that people could be deified was common place.

You're fetishising rights again chaz, no need-try really hard and bet you can use a sentence without the word.

OK, question 1
Gods existence isn't an existence in the sense of the keyboard you're hoping to type a repost to this post on.
Prove it! By what reason to you make that ridiculous statement?
Ever heard of the word 'transcendence'? to equate god with some aspect of reality is to profoundly misunderstand the notion of transcendence, or a deity isn't another piece of the world.
Yes, but I know what it means. It's about your imagining the material world. That makes god a thing of the mind, not of reality. You are merely justifying a fantasy, BY DEFINITION

That's not to say god exists or i believe that god exists, but rather if he did we'd be mistaken in thinking he was just some bigger part of the world.

No, but we would be right in saying his nothing more than a conception; just like Zeus, Gandalf or the tooth fairy.


Question 2
This is really easy, and ostensibly depends on whether you believe in Christ as divine or man.
The political reality of Nicaea is neither here nor there, if jesus was the son of god then the Nicaean creed conclusion was a kind of attractor to that ultimate reality, one fashioned by the almighty. The fact that the conclusion of Nicaea was rooted in historical and political circumstance is simply god acting through circumstance to proclaim his truth.
Naive in the extreme.
Was Homer's talking horse and the presence of Athena among the troops ALSO god acting through political circumstances?
And then for the generations that thought Jesus mortal - was that ALSO god acting through circumstances?


Of course 'The idea that Jesus was a man, was the dominant theory until the 4thC' he was after-all a man, it's not some profound revelation you observe, but the everyday reality of the time.

I'm not saying it's profound, b ut it is news to most Xians.
He can't be mortal and immortal. You have to choose.
One has to be wrong and the other right, if you think he lived at all in any sense described by the stories.

If i were a Christian i would simply counter by saying it took 4th century divine inspiration to illuminate the truth of Christ's entity.
I might say i'm not a Christian or believe in God, but i find many of the arguments on this thread as predictable as they are facile.

There is none more facile than you that gives a moment's credibility to such an asinine theory of Jesus' divinity.
That some people were willing to accept it at the time should be considered with no more credibility than that they also considered Alexander and Augustus divine - along with many other people.

[Greatest I am]

God cannot know everything. Carnal love, reproduction or sex.

Believers are constantly saying impossible things of God. They make many definitive statement of God’s attribute while claiming that he is unfathomable, unknowable, immutable and works in mysterious ways. These are clear contradictions and un-provable truths that no judge could or would accept. Yet believers think the atheist should just swallow these lies whole. And when atheists do not, believers get into their condescending mode; treat the non-believer like a child; while it is believers themselves who are action in a non-adult way, ---- led by fantasy, ------- when atheists will just not accept something unproven as truth.

Whenever the discussions of God get into explaining his irrational, immoral or strange attributes, believers deny it through evasion. They do so by hiding behind some evasive statement or other. These include silly irrational or unknowable adjectives and phrases like; God works in mysterious ways; God can do whatever he wants; God owns us; God does not have to follow his laws because they are for man and not himself; God’s action may look immoral but it is because he knows so much more than we do. Discussion end with the believer chanting one of these mantras of self-deception. Almost like a parent telling his child that it is that way because it is that way and expecting the child to accept this condescending statement and evasive lie. Believers are not honest enough to just say, I don’t know.

Anyone with experience in debated with believers expects these yet they are not applicable or relevant to moral issues. Regardless, believers use them to justify God’s immoral action and to explain away attributes that are impossible to apply to God.

God is not corporeal. He is immaterial. He cannot reproduce true. He cannot have sex. He cannot know the effects on our psyches from chemical reactions that trigger human sexual activity and desire.

Knowing this, any moral person will know that God should not dictate to man how to handle sexual matters. God cannot know what the feelings and emotions are that drive sex in man and thus it is immoral for him to demand that we do as he wishes. Because of this, he also has no right to punish man for ignoring his unlearned dictates of issues that he himself cannot possibly fathom.

There are likely many things that God cannot know. I have chosen three that I think are obvious. Carnal love, reproduction and the emotions and physical feelings that go with sex.

In a sense you're asking too many questions, but i'll see if i can address some of your ideas, and i'll start by saying i don't believe in god.

On your point about god not being able to have sex, if Christ was god incarnate then he has felt the human desires you speak of. The idea of Christ as God incarnate was a fourth century Christian idea, but nonetheless was essentially about god showing solidarity with man.

True. It was forced down Christianity's throat by Constantine. He rigged the vote.
It had more to do with following traditions than anything to do with man's solidarity with God. A genocidal son murdering God has no solidarity with anyone.

You may reject this notion of God, as post facto reasoning, but given that nearly all Christians do, your argument is somewhere upstream of Gods incarnation or indeed Christianity per se.
If god is ineffable why is his working in mysterious ways incoherent? In a sense you sound like a 1950's positivist,
but if there's nothing we can say about him, has more to do with language than god, if he exists.
God, if he exists, is not a fact of the world like the existence of the atom

How can we know that God is ineffable when we are also told he is unfathomable?
If unfathomable, then it is impossible for us to know if he is ineffable or not.

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

How can we know that God is ineffable when we are also told he is unfathomable?
If unfathomable, then it is impossible for us to know if he is ineffable or not.

Regards
DL

Isn't it the other way round??
It's because he is ineffable that we are unable to describe him so as to make him fathomable.
If he were not so ineffable then we might be able to figure him out.

[Greatest I am]

How can we know that God is ineffable when we are also told he is unfathomable?
If unfathomable, then it is impossible for us to know if he is ineffable or not.

Regards
DL

Isn't it the other way round??
It's because he is ineffable that we are unable to describe him so as to make him fathomable.
If he were not so ineffable then we might be able to figure him out.

As man's creation, if you figure out man, you will figure out God.

That is why God seems like such a p****.

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

How can we know that God is ineffable when we are also told he is unfathomable?
If unfathomable, then it is impossible for us to know if he is ineffable or not.

Regards
DL

Isn't it the other way round??
It's because he is ineffable that we are unable to describe him so as to make him fathomable.
If he were not so ineffable then we might be able to figure him out.

As man's creation, if you figure out man, you will figure out God.

That is why God seems like such a p****.

Regards
DL

As man's creation God has been made to appear ineffable exactly so that the common man is unable to find him fathomable.
In this way religions can keep a groups of experts they call priests etc. to maintain a monopoly on worship, ritual, divination ad nauseam, whilst the common folk have to rely on their own fantasies and have the priesthood interpret if their dreams of the divine are true or false.

As there is no other Gods, than the invented ones, then it is the ineffability that predates the unfathomablity and not the way round you suggested.

That is why god IS a p****.