If a god is truly beyond our understanding (Earth, theist)

[kai]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

I tend to agree.
The vast majority of God believers I know do just that, when the questions begin to get uncomfortable they resort to how much their God is unknowable, but in the same breath will tell you all manner of things they "know" about their god.

exactly! they seem to know him very well, until such time as an uncomfortable question is brought up and viola hes unknowable again

[emiliano]

Mestemia, It seems that you got in late in this, anyway I thank you for your input (I used what Bishadi use in his previous response) Now. I have no problem in using animated objects
So here we go again, I can see myself, I am a human, I certainly exist, Did I create the human race, No Did my parent that are also human created it? No again, this created animated object that the creator created is very complex and it seem to me that works very well and to purpose, it creator is very intelligent, thus I know one thing about God, but I don‘t know Him, because He is a Spirit, I just know what I personally require to believe.

I tend to agree.
The vast majority of God believers I know do just that, when the questions begin to get uncomfortable they resort to how much their God is unknowable, but in the same breath will tell you all manner of things they "know" about their god.

That’s has a simple answer: One thing is to know thing about God and another is to know God.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by kai

exactly! they seem to know him very well, until such time as an uncomfortable question is brought up and viola hes unknowable again

There is the "Unmanifest God" and the "Manifest God." This means that, in the abstract, it is possible to think of God either as God is within himself--with reference to his own nature alone--or as God is in relation to creation. God within Himself is Absolute Essence, beyond any speculative or even esctatic knowing. (Some mystics in RF stop here.) But no religious knowledge of God can be gained except through contemplation of the relation of God to creation. This is the "Manifest God," the God of religion, and knowledge of the Manifest God can never be more than relatively true and approximate. It's not "snake oil," but an admission to incomplete knowledge which is absolutely unavoidable (the finite cannot encompass the Infinite).

Using the same reasoning you use, every non-religious person in RF is selling "snake oil" when faced with questions they can't answer.

[kai]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

There is the "Unmanifest God" and the "Manifest God." This means that, in the abstract, it is possible to think of God either as God is within himself--with reference to his own nature alone--or as God is in relation to creation. God within Himself is Absolute Essence, beyond any speculative or even esctatic knowing. (Some mystics in RF stop here.) But no religious knowledge of God can be gained except through contemplation of the relation of God to creation. This is the "Manifest God," the God of religion, and knowledge of the Manifest God can never be more than relatively true and approximate. It's not "snake oil," but an admission to incomplete knowledge which is absolutely unavoidable (the finite cannot encompass the Infinite).
there you go you undestand the big guy quite well
Using the same reasoning you use, every non-religious person in RF is selling "snake oil" when faced with questions they can't answer.

only if there talking about ghosts,leprechuans ,banshee,fairies or unicorns.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by kai

only if there talking about ghosts,leprechuans ,banshee,fairies or unicorns.

Obviously, you understood nothing of what was said. That criticism comes under "anthropomorphizing God in order to question the existence of God," which is juvenile and Dawkins-like. It's like calling into question the existence of existence because faries don't exist.

[kai]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Obviously, you understood nothing of what was said. That criticism comes under "anthropomorphizing God in order to question the existence of God," which is juvenile and Dawkins-like. It's like calling into question the existence of existence because faries don't exist.

no its like calling into question the existence of faries by stating faries do exist

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by kai

no its like calling into question the existence of faries by stating faries do exist

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by emiliano

So here we go again, I can see myself, I am a human, I certainly exist, Did I create the human race, No Did my parent that are also human created it? No again, this created animated object that the creator created is very complex and it seem to me that works very well and to purpose, it creator is very intelligent, thus I know one thing about God, but I don‘t know Him, because He is a Spirit, I just know what I personally require to believe.

That’s has a simple answer: One thing is to know thing about God and another is to know God.

Nice bait and switch.
You strawman your own argument in the first sentence.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by emiliano

That’s has a simple answer: One thing is to know thing about God and another is to know God.

Which is pretty much what I said: there is the Unmanifest--the unknowable or, in the Kabbalah, the Ein-Sof--and there is the manifest, the God we know in relation to the created. The former we contemplate as experience; the latter we contemplate as idea.