Why can't we see God in the 'heavens.'

[Danmark]

For those who take the myths of the Bible literally, God is in 'the heavens.' He lives just above our atmosphere, just outside the 'celestial dome.' So why can't we see him or his 'heavenly abode?' We now have telescopes and investigative instruments that far surpass anything dreamt of by those who invented the Tower of Babel myth, yet we still cannot see God. I suggest it is because 'God' is not there. He never was. It is long past time to acknowledge these literal interpretations and ancient myths are merely symbolic; they do not represent actual facts, but myths and symbols.

[Peter]

We cannot see God because we cannot comprehend him. God is outside our space-time domain.

God is incomprehensible and doesn't exist in this universe! Thank you so much! I've been trying to explain this to theists for years.

So, knowing this fact, why should anyone care about an incomprehensible non-existent entity?

[Ciango]

[Replying to post 51 by Peter]

Who ever said that this entity is non-existent? Just because God cannot be fully comprehended, does not mean that he is non-existent. Look at the 2D Life example that I bring up throughout the debate.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 51 by Peter]

Who ever said that this entity is non-existent? Just because God cannot be fully comprehended, does not mean that he is non-existent. Look at the 2D Life example that I bring up throughout the debate.

It may just be that your analogies are horrendous, but what you are saying is patently untrue. A lower dimensional entity can always see the existence and some effects of a higher dimensional entity, just not the higher dimensional entity's totality. Remember that old film we saw in math class in Jr. High ... I think it was called Flatland? I see no sign of the existence, or the effects, of a higher dimensional entity.

[Peter]

[Replying to post 51 by Peter]

Who ever said that this entity is non-existent?

You did. Nothing exists outside the universe.

Just because God cannot be fully comprehended, does not mean that he is non-existent.

Correct. Things that exist can be incomprehensible too.

Look at the 2D Life example that I bring up throughout the debate.

I'm aware of the Flatland scenario where 2D life and 3D life can coexist in the 2D world even if the 3D'ness of the 3D life can't be seen in the 2D world.

Are you modifying your assertion that god exists outside our universe? Are you now saying that god actually exists inside our universe? If so we should be able to physically detect him no?

You really can't say something exists outside our universe but does stuff inside our universe. It makes no sense. That may not be important to you.

[Ciango]

[Replying to post 54 by Peter]

"You did. Nothing exists outside the universe."

When? And what evidence can you use to support this?

"Are you modifying your assertion that god exists outside our universe? Are you now saying that god actually exists inside our universe? If so we should be able to physically detect him no?

You really can't say something exists outside our universe but does stuff inside our universe. It makes no sense. That may not be important to you."

God is both within our universe, and without. He is omnipresent. He is without the needs of space or time entirely. You are right, it doesn't make any sense, to us. If you poked your finger through a 2D plane, with 2D people on it, all they would see is a whole, not the 3D form of your finger. They would also say that it does not make sense. That is because they cannot see the full picture, or what's really going on. To them, it's mythical and supernatural.


"If so we should be able to physically detect him no?"

No. You see, he is without the need to take up space and time entirely. How could we detect something like that? Just because we can't detect his presence does not mean that he does not exist. Basically, God has transcended beyond the dimensionality of both Space and Time. He is omniscient, and omnipresent.

[Ciango]

[Replying to post 53 by H.sapiens]

I'm sorry, I cannot debate how much you have been paying attention to the world. It's too subjective.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 51 by Peter]

Who ever said that this entity is non-existent? Just because God cannot be fully comprehended, does not mean that he is non-existent. Look at the 2D Life example that I bring up throughout the debate.

Among many others, I claimed this "entity is non-existent."

The logic you propose is particularly pernicious and demonstrably false. It begins with two false assumptions:
1. God exists
2. He cannot be comprehended

The 2d assumption does not support the first.

But let us grant the 2d assumption, that God cannot be comprehended. If God cannot be comprehended there is no point in talking about God. If we cannot comprehend this "God" then there is no point in discussing what you claim is incomprehensible.

The "incomprehensible" is by definition speculative.

If I posit the existence of a particle, or wave, or entity or anything else, and then declare that 'whatever' to be 'incomprehensible,' I have, by definition, ended the discussion because I have declared the object of the discussion 'incomprehensible.'

This should be abundantly clear, but just in case, let us suppose:

X exists,
and X is incomprehensible.

Have we not admitted that further discussion of X makes no sense since, even if X really exists somewhere, there is no way we can examine the proposition since we have defined it as 'incomprehensible?'

[Ciango]

[Replying to post 57 by Danmark]

"The logic you propose is particularly pernicious and demonstrably false. It begins with two false assumptions:
1. God exists
2. He cannot be comprehended"

1. How do you know this? What evidence can you show to prove it? I feel like I've asked this a hundred times now. The Burden of Evidence is not only on me, but all parties taking place in the debate.



"But let us grant the 2d assumption, that God cannot be comprehended. If God cannot be comprehended there is no point in talking about God. If we cannot comprehend this "God" then there is no point in discussing what you claim is incomprehensible."

Why is there no point in talking about him? We can still discuss his Word. Which is the only way we can really learn about him.


"If I posit the existence of a particle, or wave, or entity or anything else, and then declare that 'whatever' to be 'incomprehensible,' I have, by definition, ended the discussion because I have declared the object of the discussion 'incomprehensible."

Well, it's obviously very comprehensible if you put it there...... but I see your point. Declaring that he is incomprehensible does not mean that he does not exist. Find some evidence to prove that God does not exist.


"X exists,
and X is incomprehensible.

Have we not admitted that further discussion of X makes no sense since, even if X really exists somewhere, there is no way we can examine the proposition since we have defined it as 'incomprehensible?'"


That's just the thing, X exists everywhere, X is omnipresent. That's why X is incomprehensible.


"there is no way we can examine the proposition since we have defined it as 'incomprehensible?'"


We may not be able to examine God himself, but we can examine his Word.

You wanted to know why you could not see God in the 'Heavens'. I have given you my knowledge on the subject. It's because he is outside the reach of Human comprehension entirely. I have also, told you about the Tower of Babel, and the real reason that God destroyed it. So, as far as I am concerned, we have left the topic. If you wish to discuss this more with me, PM me.

[Danmark]

We may not be able to examine God himself, but we can examine his Word.

The problem arises from the question "What is 'his' word?" There is no basis for claiming what this man or that man writes represents what this incomprehensible and supposed 'God' wrote. All we have are man's approximations; man's ideas of what God may think.
____________________________
[BTW, you posts will be clearer if you master the 'quote' function, thus clearly separating what you write from what others have written. Please send a private message for assistance.]

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 53 by H.sapiens]

I'm sorry, I cannot debate how much you have been paying attention to the world. It's too subjective.

Moderator Comment

This post adds nothing to debate, is a one-liner, and is somewhat uncivil. If you don't wish to debate someone or some topic just do not do so without announcing that intention.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.