The validity of an Anthropomorphic God

I have but one thing to say: jar was right in stating your contradiction. One cannot believe and know that something exists. Belief is rooted in the unknown. The known is rooted in what we do know--more than just facts, but also an understanding of concepts.If you know that God exists, how, then, can you belief that he exists?It is a contradiction.As to the topic: as second contradiction. God can't be articulated, eh? And what is this that you've done? You've stated that he isn't good, doesn't see, hear, cannot be reasoned or boxed in, can't be described. And yet you've described your God.If God cannot be anthropomorhpic in any way, much less described, articulated, in anyway, then no one can say anything about any God. You can't say that he can't be something, nor can you say that he is something. For in the first case, you are describing, in the second you are antrhopomorphizing and describing.Care to explain away the contradictions?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

perhaps this is taking it literal to the extreme, but I know not . . .you didn't answer why the first was a contradiction, only to say that it doesn't apply to atheists. please specify why it isn't a contradiction, no matter who you are (theist or atheist).The problem with the second one--if you can't say anything about God, which you seem to agree with (based on your "exactly") then you cannot say he exists, or that he doesn't exist. Because then you're describing, articulating, and even (though this is quite a stretch) anthropomorphizing God.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

yeah, language can suck. how do express that which is unexpressible? It's like the concept of mu, it has no comparable concept in western languages.my whole point, though, was that God has to be able to be described, arituculated, and at times, maybe even anthropomorphized. Otherwise, no one can talk about God and relate the concepts of what God is or might be. If you state that you can't describe him in anyway, and then go on to, well . . . Anywho, that was my whole kind of point--I know that it's a given for you that he exists, so I wasn't (at least intentionally) arguing against that (especially as this thread isn't geared towards that topic).

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

unless you change the common understanding of what belief is, then yes. But I don't think that would be a bad thing--uncomfortable, possibly, because we'd have to get used to a new way of thinking perhaps.Don't you just love our stinkin' little language?
Beliavability is an interesting choice--to me is brings about a picture of fiction, though this isn't accurate. I admit that my use of the word knowledge is a little different, but I'd like to think it's more of an accurate application as to what knowledge really is. It is one thing to know the facts, it is another to Know the facts (think of jar's favorite statement--whatever it was). I may know my brother--I know who he is, what he is about, but do I truly Know him? When you make someone believable, it's just that--can this character be imagined to really exist, live, breath, and die?This is something I will have to flesh out more, should I get the chance (and I'm already late on my second column feature)(not to mention second drafts for my writing class)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

all I can say is:[shouting in jubilitation at being emancipated]Yay! I'm not a simpleton anymore! [/shouting] (all as a light-hearted joke)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

problem is, there is a valid explanation for war. It's called human nature. Human nature also explains God, or rather, why we choose to believe in one (or many). It can also explain why we think there is one (or many). Human nature is a valid explanation.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

is valid the same as logical? (perahps, like 2 + 2 = 22 is still valid, even though it's not right, because it ignores how we actually do do math)at anyrate, human nature is, still, a logical answer (as near as I can tell).

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Well, if you believe in the Fall, then he didn't create it--it's our punishment, this fallen nature of ours.However, if you don't believe in the flood--why does God use violence in the Old Testement? I mean, he freakin' wipes out whole cities with his wrath? Second--made in our image. The only God we can imagine will have an element of anthromoporphization (something tells me that's spelled wrong). In some odd sort of way, we can then explain that we use war because god uses war, and we are made in his image.It's a lot easier, though, if there is no God--then it's just plain old human nature, without any absurd punishment or explanations (imho)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.