God can never be proven or disproven, there is only what is perceived. Any attempt to claim a definitive knowledge of or against God is a childish claim to supremacy and omnipotence.
Any claim to perceive God should come with the allowance for different perceptions of the same God, just like two observers of stars in different hemispheres must allow that each are studying the same sky.
Any claim that no god exists must be accompanied by the allowance that there is no way to disprove a concept that is unknowable at its source. The same two stargazers must recognize that their reality is only their own, and only that reality can be theirs. The reality of another is unknowable at its source.
All attempts to prove or disprove God are only born out of the need to know what can never be known; the seemingly genetic desire of humans to assert an individual and collective will on all things, leaving no thing unreachable, unconquerable, or unknowable.
As one may know God via experience while another knows just as powerfully that there is no god, so too do many points exist between A and B. Some know God as just, others as jealous; some as loving, still others as taskmaster. Some know God as Christ, some as Vishnu, some as singular, and some as plural.
There is no knowledge where God is discussed, there is only comfort, searching and discerning. Never should there be a wall, nor a statement. God's existance is not knowable, because God as a concept is beyond full comprehension, just as I cannot look at the ground and see the whole earth. Neither can I see the sphere of Earth from space and understand the blade of grass.
As a "strong" atheist, I disagree with you, but I find your ideas very interesting. Some of what you say is similar to theological noncognitivism, but I doubt you'd subscribe to that. This post seems more like a statement from a theistic agnostic who might deny that an agnostic must be either theistic or atheistic. Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteWhatever, Ben. Sounds like an atheist in hardcore Xtian country to me. It's okay to equivocate, Toby. You know a burning cross when you see one. I'm sure you've seen you're share.
ReplyDeleteLove you both.
Dammit. I meant "your" share. Whatever.
ReplyDeleteIt's especially important to equivocate on those subjects that are inherently equivocal. Notice Z, I didn't say a word about Christ anywhere in there. This discussion rules Christ out.
ReplyDeleteBen, Bill Maher's documentary was a lesson in theologic noncognitivism and its basic, fundamental failure: it's the argument of immaturity that basically boils down to "Nuh-uh, didn't neither." I would self-describe my thoughts more as noncommital ignosticism, or exploring and questioning the concept of God without feeling a need to discount it.
Okay so I mentioned Christ once, but only in order to fully equivocate.
ReplyDeleteNoncommital ignosticism! I love it!
ReplyDelete