Kristina P.:
I didn’t say that God was unknowable. I said that anything He has not revealed to us about Himself is unknowable. You are assuming the existence of only the physical world, whereas I am assuming the existence of more than the physical world. If there is a god outside the physical world, then I cannot physically observe it. Therefore, if I am to know anything about it, I can know only what that god chooses to reveal about itself. You don’t accept this revelation as truth. Rationally, that’s a valid position.
My assumptions are based on logical fact. Yours are not. Therein lies the rub.
Okay… but attributing something like 'love" to a being is not really a concrete claim, seeing as “love” isn’t concrete.
Yes it is, and yes it is. I can make a concrete claim like “I love my cat, Mithras.” It’s provable, inasmuch as you can prove any emotion.
Also, why is the investigation limited to empirical evidence when neither the being nor the attribute in question are physical?
Empiricism deals with the ability to verify facts through knowledge. “Physical” is a misnomer. Love, as you say, isn’t physical. It’s an abstraction with a concrete justification and effect on the world. Ergo, inferrence will guide towards the definition of “love”.
Are you claiming that because the word “love” describes an abstract thought (even though it manifests itself concretely) itdoesn’t exist, because it isn’t physical? Are you a materialist?
I never said anything about God’s attributes being provable. I don’t think I’ve ever heard any Christian say that.
Whoa whoa whoa! This here is a doozy! When I asked you for some attributes of god, you provided love. Are you saying now that it’s possible your god
isn’t love? If you provided me attributes for
disproof, it follows that you could prove them yourself. If you are going to claim any attributes of god and you can’t prove a single one of them, what are doing here? Are you admitting that you’re just making baseless assertions?
This is serious flaw in your reasoning. I hope you address it.
I don’t really see how this logically follows. Many objects and beings have both empirically testable aspects and aspects that cannot be empirically tested. For example, a human being has many physical characteristics that can be empirically tested, but also many extra-physical characteristics concerning which an empirical investigation (especially from the outside) would be sketchy at best.
Care to name one?
Again, I really don’t see why this must be true. And all of this is compounded by the fact that you cannot observe that which is outside time and space. Any empirical investigation would be based solely on what such an outsider chooses to reveal explicitly (which is evidence you reject) and what such an outsider chooses to reveal implicity, if the outsider is God as we think of Him, by the state of the universe (which is incompletely understood and incomplete evidence of a God that is outside the universe).
Whoops! Sorry, you’re going to have to explain to me how a god “outside time and space” can interact with the universe, since time and space are properties of the universe. If it can interact with the universe, it follows that if it obeys (if not uses at it’s leisure)
some of the laws of the universe. In order to do this, it must manifest itself in some way (let’s say, the Eucharist) if it’s going to interact with existence.
As soon as it does this, it’s “following” the laws of the universe.
Of course, you can claim that god can do whatever he wants, break any Scientific law that he chooses… but then you are going to have to explain how you know this, considering your claims that god’s ways are “unknowable”.
Ty
No argument from me, all true, but I add to that: And so is religion.
