It's just that God isn't a part of the known universe; neither is God something concrete in our cosmos, and nor do any abstractions thereof apply to him. Put simply, there's nothing in our universe, physical/mental, that we can use as a starting point in grasping what God is. Re: apophatic theology (via negativa).

And yet there is no end to those who 'f' the ineffable

How do I know that I can't comprehend God? — Zebeden

Other people tell you so, and you're supposed to believe them.

How do I know that I can't comprehend God? — Zebeden

Welcome to the forum.

A warning. There are a lot of anti-religion bigots here on the forum who often give believers a hard time. People here, including the moderators, are not sympathetic to people who want to discuss religion from a theist perspective. Good luck.

It's just that God isn't a part of the known universe; neither is God something concrete in our cosmos, and nor do any abstractions thereof apply to him. Put simply, there's nothing in our universe, physical/mental, that we can use as a starting point in grasping what God is. Re: apophatic theology (via negativa). — Agent Smith

This is exactly how I feel about myself. J/k, heh.

This is exactly how I feel about myself. J/k, heh. — Garrett Travers

:smile:

God isn't a part of the known universe — Agent Smith

I agree with that. What bothers me is if God isn't a part of the known universe, how do I know that? For me to be able to say that "Michael is not in the kitchen" shouldn't I have some sort of notion what Michael is?

I guess our question requires us to provide a criteria of allowing something to be a part of the known universe. If I take perception and/or body senses as such criteria ("to be known is to be perceived") then how can I know that I never perceive God if I assume that I have never perceived him before and therefore don't know what God is. And if we take some sort of abstract thought as a criteria to be known, then how I was able to make such abstraction "God" if I can't know what "God" is?

In the first case it seems that it is said that God is not perceived just because we took such assumption (that God is something not perceived). And in the second case shouldn't we admit at the end that something is known what is not known?

It's just that God isn't a part of the known universe; neither is God something concrete in our cosmos, and nor do any abstractions thereof apply to him. Put simply, there's nothing in our universe, physical/mental, that we can use as a starting point in grasping what God is. — Agent Smith

you seem to be pretty sure about this. What's your source?

I so totally agree with you, Zebeden.

My take on it is that god is a psychological archetype, present in all humans. Atheists, too. You never have to explain to a human what a god thing is. But when it comes to detailing it.... that's a different cat of worms.

Unless God created himself, God can't be in the universe.

Unless God created himself, God can't be in the universe. — Agent Smith

Suppose god did not create this word, but another god did?


https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7848/about-this-word-agnosticism-and-its-derivatives-agnostic-agnost-agnosta-etc-

Unless God created himself, God can't be in the universe. — Agent Smith

It's possible for him to have created Himself. He be omnipotent, ain't He?

How do I know that I can't comprehend God? — Zebeden

You can take this in various directions. Not being able to comprehend God does not mean you can't talk about God, it just means that when you are, you are fumbling around using human categories and definitions which will always be inadequate or wrong. God is ineffable.

Consider this - God has no explanatory power. People use God as a way to explain all manner of things - creation, meaning, morality. But what precisely is explained with an appeal to God? Precisely nothing. It is, for instance, incomprehensible to us how God might have initiated creation. To say we can explain creation using God is to use a mystery to explain a mystery.

How do I know that I can't comprehend God? — Zebeden

Cute.

Have you ever noticed how folk will say god is incomprehensible, then proceed to tell you exactly what ti is that god wants you to do?

How's that supposed to work?

If god is incomprehensible, then silence.

It's just that God isn't a part of the known universe

Then God can be ignored. For all intents and purposes, God doesn't exist.

How can we interact with anything outside the universe? What relationship can there be? If God can reach back in to meddle in our affairs, then God is (at that point) part of the universe God created.

And if God doesn't reach back in, what use is the concept?

How do I know that I can't comprehend God? — Zebeden

IMO "God" is an anxiety (like death), not an entity.

That's still something said if not about God himself then about our conception of God, isn't it? But by saying "X is incomprehensible", "X is something we can't say anything about" etc.

Re: negative theology (which inspires my own decades-old position ).

A warning. There are a lot of anti-religion bigots here on the forum who often give believers a hard time — T Clark

Do we scare you? :sweat:

Then God can be ignored. — Real Gone Cat

Pascal's wager?

How do I know that I can't comprehend God?
— Zebeden
IMO "God" is an anxiety, not an entity, like death.
That's still something said if not about God himself then about our conception of God, isn't it? But by saying "X is incomprehensible", "X is something we can't say anything about" etc.
Re: negative theology (which inspires my own decades-old position ↪180 Proof).

A warning. There are a lot of anti-religion bigots here on the forum who often give believers a hard time
— T Clark
Do we scare you? :sweat: — 180 Proof

:clap: :fire:

Unless God created himself, God can't be in the universe.
— Agent Smith

It's possible for him to have created Himself. He be omnipotent, ain't He? — god must be atheist

For x to create y, x must precede y in existence.
If x creates x, x must exist before x exists. :chin:
:confused:

:broken:

Pascal’s wager?

Are you suggesting that Pascal’s wager is a good reason why God should NOT be ignored? Hmmm…I’m just not that scared of the consequences.

I was just trying to follow your claim that God is outside the universe. I still want to know what relationship we can have with an entity we cannot interact with. Either we or God must be able to cross the boundary between universe and non-universe. Both possibilities pose problems.

I’m just not that scared of the consequences. — Real Gone Cat

You should be! E-T-E-R-N-A-L T-O-R-M-E-N-T!

Or eternal bliss :p

But I don't believe in hell (or the sort of theistic heaven people talk about). It's something ... ineffable. Interesting stuff, as always.

But I don't believe in hell — DA671

Whether one believes or does not believe in gravity, one falls if one trips.

Sometimes, there's a dream of falling off one's bed that does not materialise in reality. After a while, its persistence loses its persuasion power. But reality obviously remains enigmatic. Terrible void, future bliss, or something else-much to ponder. May you have a good day!

Dreams are dreams, reality is reality. Tautological/a truism, nevertheless apposite for the occasion.

Dreams are indeed dreams and reality is indeed reality. They could meet, but we could also conflate. The line is blurred when biases (potential, but probable) and projections are involved. Dreams and intuitions covered by haze can be difficult to comprehend. Interpretations abound, yet reasonable probability seems to point away from the absolutes. Nevertheless, I realise that each individual will have their own conclusion. I can only hope that it will serve them well.

For x to create y, x must precede y in existence. — Agent Smith

This is true only if "x creates" presupposes that "x" is already "in existence" and ontically separate from "y".

If x creates x, x must exist before x exists.

Causa sui – "x creates x" – merely denotes "x" is not the effect of any external causes (i.e. random) and that it's only "x"'s continuity, or perdurance, which "x creates".

You should be! E-T-E-R-N-A-L T-O-R-M-E-N-T!

So I ask how we can have a relationship with an entity not of this universe, and you come back with PASCAL’S WAGER? Um, hate to burst your bubble, but you know those presents under the tree each Xmas? That was your parents - not Santa Claus.

I get it if you don’t want to answer my first question, so let’s try another: so God exists, just not in this universe. Are you proposing a multiverse? Or a metaverse? Which of course begs the question, who created the multiverse/metaverse? A bigger God?

And infinite regress sets in, and we run screaming out of the house with our hair on fire. I’m just trying to save you from madness, friend.

:smirk: