"The Last Conformist" <andreasj@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119810370.734779.53830@o13g2000cwo

If you believe you're refuting the assertion "if God exists, he clearly
used evolution", you are sorely mistaken.

You are the one who is 'sorely mistaken' if you seriously believe that the
statement
"If God exists, he clearly used evolution" is even *meaningful*...!

Look at how your 'god' is shrinking: a handful of decades ago, you all
thought 'he' was capable of turning people into piles of salt and flooding
the planet with water. Now 'he' is just a piece of tracing-paper held over a
set of material processes that run perfectly well without 'him'.

As I've said before: your 'god' is *shrinking faster than a weenie in an
ice-bucket*...!

LOL!!!

dh@. wrote:

I'd be interested in reading that part.

Then it would appear that we have something in common.

You're too lazy to read what I wrote just yesterday, and I'm too
lazy to re-write it just for your lazy *****.

Cheers,

Fred wrote:

Raymond E. Griffith wrote:

Ben Goren wrote:

You know, the bit how, if God exists, then there's
existence already and so nothing for him to create?

That is a silly assertion.

This assertion is a silly assertion.

It is a difficult proposition. Through the centuries, various
ideas have been put forward to explain how God could be the
Creator of all that exists (without being created Himself).
Some put forward the idea that to ascribe "existence" to God
is futile, that God does not "exist" as we understand
existence.

This is an excellent idea. The idea here is that it is
reasonable to use the word existence when talking about god,
but then to claim that the word has a different meaning. This
way, the proponents of this argument can make their claims and
then hide behind semantics to avoid have to support it.

Actually, the idea was to demonstrate that our language is
insufficient to handle concepts we have no real experience
with. The question of "Does God exist?" uses the word "exist",
but it is a question that has little meaning. It really doesn't
try to assume a different meaning for the word when applied to
God.

At the same time, God could properly be said to be everything.

In other words, god created itself?

Not in the way you are thinking of it. The idea is that God is
not a *thing*.

It would be easier to teach an ant to understand us and the
entire universe than it would be for us to completely
understand God.

Such ridiculous statements may impress those who believe
anyway, but can you really expect such a platitude to hold any
meaning to anyone else? If the ant were to understand the
entire universe, would that not include god?

Not necessarily. Christian theology holds that God created the
universe, not that He is a part of it. The difficulty comes from
the fact that we think in terms of nouns, and so inadvertently
place God inside the universe as if it contained Him.
One could know everything in the Universe and still not know
God.

Words are insufficient. There are no words or concepts in the
human language to describe the "being-ness" of God.

In other words, such people are misuing "the human langauge"?

Not at all. It is simply a result of trying to ask a question
that has no meaning.
I teach mathematics. In dealing with the process of division,
there is an operation which has no meaning, and we call such an
operation "undefined".

By the way, how do you know what words are available in the
human language, whatever that means? Are you familiar with all
forms of langauge?

The being-ness of God is beyond human experience. I do not see a
problem with noting that there are no words available in the
human language to describe it with any sort of meaning to the
listener.
I suppose you could try to locate such a word. But would you
ever be able to translate it so that it carried meaning to the
hearer?

At least, this is how many have approached it.

Not surprising.

Well, I offered it for comment. Thanks for commenting.

Fred at

"Raymond E. Griffith" <rgrif...@ctc.net> wrote:

It is a difficult proposition. Through the centuries, various
ideas have been put forward to explain how God could be the
Creator of all that exists (without being created Himself).
Some put forward the idea that to ascribe "existence" to God
is futile, that God does not "exist" as we understand existence.

This is an excellent idea. The idea here is that it is reasonable
to use the word existence when talking about god, but then to
claim that the word has a different meaning. This way, the
proponents of this argument can make their claims and then hide
behind semantics to avoid have to support it.

Actually, the idea was to demonstrate that our language is
insufficient to handle concepts we have no real experience with.
The question of "Does God exist?" uses the word "exist", but it
is a question that has little meaning. It really doesn't try to
assume a different meaning for the word when applied to God.

We created the Gawd concept and we created language prefectly adequate
to describe the Gawd concept. Gawd is imaginary. Period.

Ben Goren wrote:

El Bleacho

Ben Goren wrote:

You know, the bit how, if God exists, then there's existence
already and so nothing for him to create?

That is a silly assertion

If it's so silly, you should have no trouble proving it
worng. So have at it.

It is a difficult proposition.

explain how God could be the Creator of all that exists (without
being created Himself

futile, that God does not "exist" as we understand existence

The idea was expressed, in seed form, by Christ Himself in a
conversation with the woman at the well in John 4. The woman was
asking the question about the proper physical place to worship,
as if to say, "Where does God reside?" Jesus responded, "But a
time is coming -- and now is here -- when the true worshipers
will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father
seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is a Spirit, and the
people that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
(vv. 23-24).

At the same time, God could properly be said to be
everything. Not only were "All things created by him, and apart
from him not one thing was created that has been created" (John
1:3), but "In him we live, and move about, and exist" (Acts
17:28).

This dynamic tension created by a set of seemingly contradictory
hypotheses reminds us that God is not like us.

entire universe than it would be for us to completely understand
God

the human language to describe the "being-ness" of God

At least, this is how many have approached it. For a better
treatment of the topic, Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" is
a good source.

Ben Goren wrote:

El Bleacho wrote:

Ben Goren wrote:

You know, the bit how, if God exists

already and so nothing for him to create?

That is a silly assertion

If it's so silly, you should have no trouble proving it
worng. So have at it.

It is a difficult proposition.

Through the centuries, various ideas have been put forward to
explain how

being created Himself

Some put forward the idea that to ascribe "existence" to God is
futile, that God does not "exist" as we understand existence

The idea was expressed, in seed form, by Christ Himself in a
conversation with the woman at the well in John 4. The woman was
asking the question about the proper physical place to worship,
as if to say, "Where does God reside?" Jesus responded, "But a
time is coming -- and now is here -- when the true worshipers
will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father
seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is a Spirit, and the
people that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
(vv. 23-24).

At the same time, God could properly be said to be
everything. Not only were "All things created by him, and apart
from him not one thing was created that has been created" (John
1:3), but "In him we live, and move about, and exist" (Acts
17:28).

This dynamic tension created by a set of seemingly contradictory
hypotheses reminds us that God is not like us.

It would be easier to teach an ant to understand us and

entire universe than it would be for us to completely understand
God

the human

At least, this is how many have approached it. For a better
treatment of the topic, Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" is
a good source.

Raymond E. Griffith wrote:

Ben Goren wrote:

El Bleacho wrote:

Ben Goren wrote:

You know, the bit how, if God exists, then there's existence
already and so nothing for him to create?

That is a silly assertion.

If it's so silly, you should have no trouble proving it
worng. So have at it.

It is a difficult proposition.

``Difficult proposition,'' indeed. Of course, I would argue that
that's because it's a false proposition--but I thank you for
making an honest attempt to explain it.

Through the centuries, various ideas have been put forward to
explain how God could be the Creator of all that exists (without
being created Himself).

Yes, people have been trying for ages--just as they've been trying
to explain all the rest of the contradictions and impossibilities
that result from trying to reconcile reality with their favorite
myth. To date, every time a conflict has been resolved, reality
has been the victor.

Some put forward the idea that to ascribe "existence" to God is
futile, that God does not "exist" as we understand existence.

Indeed, the only way something can not exist...is if it doesn't
exist. Thus, attempting to ``ascribe `existence''' to God must
ever be futile.

The idea was expressed, in seed form, by Christ Himself in a
conversation with the woman at the well in John 4. The woman was
asking the question about the proper physical place to worship,
as if to say, "Where does God reside?" Jesus responded, "But a
time is coming -- and now is here -- when the true worshipers
will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father
seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is a Spirit, and the
people that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
(vv. 23-24).

Countless invisible spirits have been proposed in myth, and
equally countless attempts have been made to prove their
reality. Indeed, until Messrs. van Leeuwenhoek, Pasteur, /et al./
demonstrated the true cause of disease, invisible spirits were
assumed to be the culprits. There is no reason to assume that God
is not exactly the same kind of invisible spirit.

At the same time, God could properly be said to be
everything. Not only were "All things created by him, and apart
from him not one thing was created that has been created" (John
1:3), but "In him we live, and move about, and exist" (Acts
17:28).

The logical conclusion of this argument is Pantheism or Deism, in
which God is relegated to nothing more than a synonym for ``the
universe.''

It is irrefutable but ultimately meaningless: for we
already have a perfectly good word for the universe. It also robs
God of all power. Each part of the universe would equally be a
part of God; there could be no external mind or force to impose
God's will. Being totality, God is nothing.

This dynamic tension created by a set of seemingly contradictory
hypotheses reminds us that God is not like us.

To be certain, God is not like us. For our existence is real, not
contradictory--seemingly or otherwise. Contradiction is perhaps
the strongest indicator we have of non-existence, and God is the
Ultimate Contradiction.

It would be easier to teach an ant to understand us and the
entire universe than it would be for us to completely understand
God. Words are insufficient. There are no words or concepts in
the human language to describe the "being-ness" of God.

This is the only part of your thesis to which I truly object, for
it asserts that, the answer being impossible to determine, it
is fruitless to even try. No other phenomenon has ever been
demonstrated to be truly unknowable, and innumerable claims of
unknowability have been shattered.

To proclaim ourselves unworthy of the challenge is to give up
before the race is started. Even if the goal is unreachable, our
very existence demands that the journey must be worthwhile. And
our experience has taught us that even the impossible can become
old hat.
And, indeed, simply exploring the necessary properties
of the classical theological God--omnipotence, omniscience,
omnibenevolence, and being the First Cause--lead inevitably,
inexorably, to more contradictions and impossibilities than you
can shake a stick at. Merely asking the questions is enough to
topple the claims.

At least, this is how many have approached it. For a better
treatment of the topic, Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" is
a good source.

My parents have a copy, and I've skimmed parts. I'll have to read
the whole thing...but the pile is growing, not shrinking....

Again, thanks for the thoughtful response.

Cheers,
b&

Which is why science and religion must remain separate. They are two
different domains.

As for whether or not the proposition that "God exists" is
false, though, I think it boils down to asking the questions,
"Are we capable of knowing everything there is to know?" and "Do
we know everything there is to know?"

Through the centuries, various ideas have been put forward to
explain how God could be the Creator of all that exists
(without being created Himself).

Yes, people have been trying for ages--just as they've been
trying to explain all the rest of the contradictions and
impossibilities that result from trying to reconcile reality
with their favorite myth. To date, every time a conflict has
been resolved, reality has been the victor.

Well, at least to the best of our ability. Even in science we
recognize that there is "reality" and there is "our perception
of reality". So we make instrumentation to help us measure what
we cannot perceive without it. We make hypotheses which we test,
and build theories with to help us explain what we perceive
about reality -- and then we change these things as better
explanations are put forward.
So instead of saying that "reality has been the victor", perhaps
you could say "the more accurate perception of reality has been
the victor".

Countless invisible spirits have been proposed in myth, and
equally countless attempts have been made to prove their
reality. Indeed, until Messrs. van Leeuwenhoek, Pasteur, /et
al./ demonstrated the true cause of disease, invisible spirits
were assumed to be the culprits. There is no reason to assume
that God is not exactly the same kind of invisible spirit.

We certainly did find a more accurate culprit to pin disease
on. But your extrapolation may be unwarranted.

At the same time, God could properly be said to be
everything. Not only were "All things created by him, and
apart from him not one thing was created that has been
created" (John 1:3), but "In him we live, and move about, and
exist" (Acts 17:28).

The logical conclusion of this argument is Pantheism or Deism,
in which God is relegated to nothing more than a synonym for
``the universe.''

Not quite, although I see your point. Please note that I am
giving a brief summary and not an extended treatment of the
argument.
But no. God is not equivalent to "the Universe" by this
argument. The point is more subtle.

It would be easier to teach an ant to understand us and the
entire universe than it would be for us to completely
understand God. Words are insufficient. There are no words or
concepts in the human language to describe the "being-ness" of
God.

This is the only part of your thesis to which I truly object,
for it asserts that, the answer being impossible to determine,
it is fruitless to even try. No other phenomenon has ever been
demonstrated to be truly unknowable, and innumerable claims of
unknowability have been shattered.

I will agree to this, except to note that it is hardly fair to
call God a "phenomenon".

And certainly as far as physical phenomenon go, I too object to
the idea that something is "unknowable".

But if one brings God into the scrutiny of science, then you may
indeed wind up undermining science itself. The ID people and
creationists are trying to do this very thing and make science
seem like a religion (which it is not).
I believe that religion and science occupy two disjoint domains.

To proclaim ourselves unworthy of the challenge is to
give up before the race is started. Even if the goal is
unreachable, our very existence demands that the journey must
be worthwhile. And our experience has taught us that even the
impossible can become old hat.
And, indeed, simply exploring the necessary properties of
the classical theological God--omnipotence, omniscience,
omnibenevolence, and being the First Cause--lead inevitably,
inexorably, to more contradictions and impossibilities than you
can shake a stick at. Merely asking the questions is enough to
topple the claims.

The question is not going to be settled by you or by me. And I
am still investigating the topic. People of honest mind have
been batting this around for a long time.

Now back to grading papers.

Then, if there is

Consider:
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
That is Kurt Godel's (second) Incompleteness Theorem, applied to
God himself. For though the sentence is itself true, God can
never prove it. (If God were to prove that the sentence is true,
he would, in so doing, instead prove it false and thus be forced
to start over again.)
This is an impossible action, even for God. It is the stone he
cannot lift; the burrito he cannot microwave to an uneatable
temperature. It establishes that, no matter how powerful God may
be, there will always be a limit to his power.
Thus the limitless is limited, and the omnipotent rendered
impossible.

Ben Goren wrote:

Consider:
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
That is Kurt Godel's (second) Incompleteness Theorem, applied to
God himself. For though the sentence is itself true, God can
never prove it. (If God were to prove that the sentence is true,
he would, in so doing, instead prove it false and thus be forced
to start over again.)
This is an impossible action, even for God. It is the stone he
cannot lift; the burrito he cannot microwave to an uneatable
temperature. It establishes that, no matter how powerful God may
be, there will always be a limit to his power.
Thus the limitless is limited, and the omnipotent rendered
impossible.

This assumes that reality is constrained by logic. Of course, there's
every reason to think that's the case, but the idea that reality allows
self-contradiction seems like the definition of irrefutable.
The scary part is that some months ago, I found myself in the minority
when I, in a discussion of mysticism, defended the idea that reality
is self-consistent.