Originally Posted by Dr Pepper
This is just another one of those cases where the atheist is
trying to evoke atheist ideology as though it's an epistemological gate
keeping exercise. If you can't meet our criteria then you fail the
knowledge test, like not knowing baic math or something.It's nothing more than a propaganda device. there's no reason why we
should have to meet that criteria becuase its' not part of our theory of
knowledge,. God is not given in sense data so he can't be subject to scientific scrutiny.
All you are saying is "I want to put God over here in a category I can
deal with." that's the basic ploy of reductionism. reduce all knowledge
the one I can control.
,,,,Of course God is portrayed by humans as having human-like qualities becuase how else could we relate to God? How are we going to relate to something that's beyond our understanding? We are always looking for patterns that we can understand and that make sense to us. That's what science does. No scientist says "the universe is beyond our understanding, we are just imposing the patters we want to see so that we can pick out and that make sense but in reality there is no sense to be made." Even scientific schools that go far enough as to say there are no rational pattern, we impose the pattern don't say, "therefore we can't understand the universe so let's forget scinece."
.....God is beyond our understanding, but we have to speak of the divine because we are verbal and social animals. So we bridge the gap between known and unknown by drawing analogies to what we know. We know the father figure so we see God as a father. We know from experiencing God's presence there is some point of contact there.
I have no need of that hypothesis