Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum What do we know about God?

In another thread, at another time, possibly in another universe, I asked: “What do we know about God? I suggested that the answer might be: “Nothing”.

Rev derailed what might have been a discussion by wandering off into the etymology of “no-thing” and the thread continued to meander towards a place in the Guinness Book of Records.

Since other threads seem readily to evolve into theological/philosophical/religious exchanges, I am revisiting this question, in its own thread, in the hope that it might provide a repository for some of these distractions.

The question remains: “What do we know – as distinct from believe – about God?”

My suggested response remains the same: “Nothing”.

Further, I propose that this is true both of theists and atheists.

thats a great idea bill s , maybe now those who seem be more interested in discussing religion vs science will have a place
to rant and rave about religion and they might just leave the
science topics to science.

Attracting ranting and raving is not my favourite pastime (well, just a little, sometimes, perhaps; just for fun), but the thought occurred that if the religious stuff and the science stuff were constrained by sufficiently rigid parameters we might be able to have a civil discussion about both. That would be quite something, wouldn’t it?

If someone made claims to know something.., then who or what, would be the authoritative measure of validity.
What would/could you accept or deny?

I know plenty, probably more than some and less than others.

What do I know about God?… nothing.

What do I believe about God… even less.

However, I think that it is reasonable to speculate:
The aspect that I find to be relevant is that (as both an observer and participant of existence); I feel strongly that the universe is not haphazard. It doesn’t appear to be arbitrary. There seems to be too much “cleverness” in its design. In addition, when I view the universe through the lens of philosophy, there seems to be too many “conveniences” built in… Accommodations for existence.

In this regard, it has always been in my nature to give “kudos” to the designer but that is the extent of it.

I cannot attribute anything more than that. It is ludicrous to personify, symbolize, anticipate, attribute, deduce, etc. … we just ain’t got the tools.

In a technical sense, that makes me a deist but in any practical sense; I am an atheist.

I’m sure that Rev. will be along shortly and I would like to tell him that I know that I owe him one. I don’t want to engage him until I have the near eternity that will be needed to have a meaningful dialog.

I'm not going to discuss religion on this forum.

It would be something more akin to feeding the vultures.

that said , I'll leave the thread to the vulture's and their next meal.

Well I could be nit-picky and say that you, BillS , do know something about your knowledge of God, and that is you know nothing.

We all know nothing about God--- or we know everything, if we believe in our own belief, or lack thereof. That which we call 'knowing god' is actually an personal acknowledgement of our belief, or lack of belief, in the existence of divine phenomena. This is true if we regard god as the force that helps us in our everyday problems such as helping us find a lost earring, or the force which shaped the universe. Size is not an indicator of divinity!

And that's it for me too!

If I remember rightly the RC Catechism defines faith thus:

"Faith is a supernatural gift of God that enables us to believe, without doubting, whatever God has revealed".

Nothing about knowledge there. Knowledge requires proof. IMO, we can neither prove, nor disprove anything about God.

Those who make claims such as: "God wills this", or "God hates fags", are simply making statements based on their personal beliefs, as are those who state with absolute conviction that "there is no God".

If the cosmos (universe) is infinite, then the cosmos is everything, and everything is the cosmos. Cleverness and design are intrinsic to all that is, they are not something imposed from outside; there is no outside.

Agreed. I can't imagine anything outside of existence. Spatial and temporal infinity should encompass all.

That's why I went through more trouble to apply extreme constraints to a (barely) socratic opinion than the opinion itself.

My opinion was that the universe appeared to be organized and not haphazard (like a dream or a Picasso).

I also find it interesting that existence is the reality vs. the more homogeneous or perfect "nothing at all" option. Smacks of exertion or intent. Can't say much about it without being in the philosophical realm.

Picasso's art was NOT haphazard!

So much for:


God in action.. No thing being haphazard

Agreed; but it might appear so to anyone who is not aware of his childhood experiences.

Well I certainly didn't want to raise the ire of someone more learned in the arts.

My reference to cubism was intended as a visual analogy. Technically, a dream isn't haphazard either.

Hopefully, I succeeded in painting the picture none-the-less.

Pleased to meet you Ellis.

It was a short and terse observation because I had bidden goodbye to the topic (but I can't keep my opinions to myself) so i did not point put that, of course,our dreams are not haphazard either!

And, as a result I have to admit, even more gallingly that TT is RIGHT!

However the reason for pointing out the unhaphazardness of Picasso is that the idea he was exploring at the time of his most puzzling pictures was somewhat similar to what we are discussing here. He often explored the reality of images from multiple impossible viewpoints for instance and liked to deliberately create uncertainty and possibly chaos in our minds. I will agree that some other artists are haphazard-- often with amazing results that have been described as masterpieces! Jackson Pollack anyone!

Hi Kirby, nice to hear you again!

Thanks for pointing that out...some interesting constructions!

The world has no joy for improvement if it threatens ones own beliefs, even if they are unconscious and emerge in reaction to outward appearances. The ego hates to have its idealistic world threatened.

I suppose if God doesn't fit the personal image it must not exist.