Quote:
Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
Also I happen to believe that there MIGHT be room for some sort of spiritual multi-dimensional "super-entity" although there's precious little evidence to support it. If you want to call this "God", then fine. But I also find the notion that "God" being anything even remotely close to what's described in the religions of Judeasm, Christianity or Islam to be ridiculous. Any thought that we could understand the mind of such a being/entity is silly - even the notion that such a being/entity has a "mind" in the sense that we think of one is silly. More likely there are certain things that "just are". The notion that we can anthropomorphize "God" into something we can relate to is really dumbing it down.
|
Actually, what you describe is one of the concepts that the three religions you mentioned would actually agree on. Basically that concept is God is beyond all human understanding. Any words used to describe God or God's ways suffer from the "blind men describing an elephant" phenomenon. In some respects Judeasm and Islam have it right when they say that to represent God visually would be idolitry since it would be creating a god in man's image. Personally, I find that many of the atheists (did I get it right this time?
) succumb to this fallicy whenever they discribe the god that they don't believe in. They describe the charactoristics that they expect from God which they see lacking. From a theological perspective, this by definition ignores the charactoristics that the athiest isn't expecting or doesn't understand.