God: Knowable or not Knowable?

In some recent posts (Message 15; Message 14) as well as all the posts on this page, Phat has brought up the issue of the "knowability of God", as it were. He asserts that God is knowable and that a relationship is possible between humans and God. I hereby challenge that assertion, for the following reasons:

1. To have a (meaningful) relationship with an entity, empathy is required.
   1. Empathy is the ability to see the world in the way someone else sees it.
2. To empathise with God would require us to see the world the way God does.
   1. To see the world the way God does would require us to have an equal understanding as God.
      1. To have an equal understanding to God would require that we either have Godly understanding, or
      2. Require God to decrease in Godliness to a point at which humans had an equal understanding.
   2. If humans increase to a Godly understanding, it would entail Godly understanding to supernaturally manipulate the world.
      1. This would remove God's specialness and just make Him another one among many (i.e., de-Godify Him).
   3. If God decreases in Godliness, then the characteristic that makes Him God (that is, His Godliness) would decrease to a human level.
      1. If God's Godliness decreases to a human level, then He simply becomes another one among many (i.e., it de-Godifies Him).
   4. To de-Godify God would be to make Him no longer God.
   5. We accept that there is, however, a God.
   6. Therefore we cannot have an understanding equal to God.
3. Since we cannot have an understanding equal to God, we cannot empathise with God.
   1. Since we cannot empathise with God, we cannot have a relationship with God.
   2. THEREFORE: We cannot have a relationship with God.

What do the folks around here think? Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

[Philosophy] stands behind everything. It is the loom behind the fabric, the place you arrive when you trace the threads back to their source. It is where you question everything you think you know and seek every truth to be had. - Archer Opterix [msg=-11,-316,210]

Well, I do agree with some reasons. However, I do not agree with Mod's reasoning that we can know God. In Message 103, Jar makes the following relevant point:

quote:

---

It is simply impossible for a worm to see as you do, to think as you do, to experience what you experience. It is also impossible for you to so limit yourself that you could see as the worm sees, think as a worm, experience as a worm.

​

If though, you could do that, you would no longer be a man. To communion, to have a relationship, there must be something fairly close to parity.

​

A man can have a relationship with a dog, the dog can obey the man, perhaps even love the man, but the relationship will always be limited.

​

As the gulf between two lifeforms increases, the possibility of communion or relationships becomes increasingly unlikely.

---

A message by Phat (Message 100):

quote:

---

Jar writes:

​

How much of a relationship can you have with a worm?

How much relationship would I even want to have with a darn worm? But of course I am a selfish human, rather than an omnipotent altruistic God....who may well desire to commune with worms!

---

So, since that from that thread was pretty relevant, I'd thought I'd bring it in. I hope to see Phat posting some of his ideas here for the general audience to respond to .Jon

Ever had a non-castrated male dog? How much 'tang do they try to get?They want their own kind

So, you have chosen the track on which you decrease God to a humanly level? Okay. No; sorry. We fear things that we do not understand. Once we understand something, we stop fearing it and begin feeling different emotions toward it - e.g., love, hate, respect, etc. But fear and understanding? They just do not go together, sorry. I'll leave it up to someone else to explain that one to you .Jon

So, as far as you're concerned, the purpose of your master is to: "provide me with ample table scraps, scruffy neck rubs..."? It's an odd master that serves his subordinates more than they serve him... no? So, in your experiences with your own pet (bird), you've learned what she likes to eat, when she wants to go in her cage, when she's thirsty, if she's tired... etc. What has your bird learned about you?Jon

Are the limitations of what your bird can learn about you limited to those things you have in common, i.e., those things that are not different between you? I mean, the bird doesn't understand what it means when you type a reply at EvC, but she might understand what it means when you put food in your own mouth.So, are the limitations of what your bird can learn about you limited to those things that are not different between you?Jon Edited by AgamemJon, : cross your Ts and all that junk...

Okay. Now, for the question:Are the limitations of what your bird can learn about you limited to those things you have in common, i.e., those things that are not different between you? I mean, the bird doesn't understand what it means when you type a reply at EvC, but she might understand what it means when you put food in your own mouth.So, are the limitations of what your bird can learn about you limited to those things that are not different between you?Jon

If I am better than you at something, does that indicate a difference between you and me in regards that particular thing? For example, if I am better at soccer than are you, does that indicate a difference between you and me when it comes to soccer?

Is the limitation of what can be learned reected in the limitation of the relationship? For example, is it true that a less limited relationship exists with an entity about whom you have learned more, but a more limited relationship exists with an entity about whom you have learned less?

Is God innately better than you?

Difference begets limitation of knowing (Different ’ k-Limit)

​

Jon writes:

​

If I am better than you at something, does that indicate a difference between you and me in regards that particular thing?

Phat writes:

​

Sure.

Betterness begets difference (Better ’ Different)

​

Jon writes:

​

Is the limitation of what can be learned reected in the limitation of the relationship?

Phat writes:

​

my answer is yes.

Limitation of knowing begets limitation of relationship (k-Limit ’ r-Limit)

​

Jon writes:

​

Is God innately better than you?

Phat writes:

​

Of course!

God has innite betterness (iBetter)

​

So:

1. Betterness begets difference (Better ’ Different)
2. Difference begets limitation of knowing (Different ’ k-Limit)
3. Limitation of knowing begets limitation of relationship (k-Limit ’ r-Limit)
4. God has innite betterness (iBetter)

Therefore:

1. Innite betterness begets innite difference (iBetter ’ iDifferent)
2. Innite difference begets innite limitation of knowing (iDifferent ’ ik-Limit)
3. Innite limitation of knowing begets innite limitation of relationship (ik-Limit ’ ir-Limit)
4. It is not possible to close an innite gap without changing either party.
   1. We cannot change either party.
   2. We cannot possibly close the innite gap.
5. So we have an innite limit in the possibility of a relationship with God.
   1. Anything innitely limited in its possibility is simply impossible.
   2. It is impossible to have a relationship with God.
6. It is impossible to have a relationship with God.

​

As for this:

​

Thats why He needed Jesus!

​

A. God needs nothing.
B. Jesus died nearly 2000 years ago.
C. Jesus is completely irrelevant.

​

Thanks, kind sir, for playing. We hope to see you at the tables sometime soon again. Enjoy the rest of your stay.

​

Jon

Agreed. In fact, I've already incorporated that into the logic. Would you care to tell me how it's damaging to the argument?Jon

Yep. The relationship can only be as full as the human can maintain. If you say your relationship is with God, even though your relationship can only be fulfilled on the human level, then you have fallen into C.a. from Message 1:

quote:

---

If God's Godliness decreases to a human level, then He simply becomes another one among many (i.e., it de-Godifies Him).

---

God can know us all They wants, but a one-sided knowing doesn't make a relationship. A relationship with your cat is limited to what your cat can know of you; it's a limited relationship. A relationship with a worm is limited to what the worm can know of you; it's a limited relationship. A relationship with God is limited to what the lesser party (humans) can know of the greater Party (God) - as with the others. And in the case of the God-human relationship, the limit to what the lesser party can know is infinite, because the difference is infinite; it's an infinitely limited relationship, i.e., not possible (since infinite limits already include all the limits that would bar a human from participating). Unless, of course, you are a big fan of trap C.a. (Message 1). Placing limits on God, are we? If it is true that: and: then it follows that the relationship is innitely unequal, right?

No. You don't get to set the logic aside for a moment. Stop acting like a whiny, needy little cry-baby for just once in your life and grow up and start thinking for yourself without all the preconceived brainwash garbage in your head. Completely irrelevant. This has nothing to do with ANYTHING in this thread. Furthermore, this isn't even a question, let alone simple; it's just more of your usual theobabble garbage bullshit.C'mon, already! You agreed with Stile's points made, so maybe you will want to give me your own rebuttal to what I said in response to Stile. If not, then concede your points.Jeesh.

Does this mean He takes the heat when we screw up? 2000 years ago. They (God) is not, but the He that you describe is.