Why trying to prove or disprove god is stupid

[Zetetic11235]

God is a being which cannot be defined as all who believe in him know him/her/it differently manifest as different things. God by all accounts is beyond human understanding otherwise he would be useless as he would hold no answers that we could not potentially know without him. Because he is beyond understanding, using a logical process to define him is a contradiciton, also, because he hypothetically created everything, including logic, he must also be outside of the system he created and it a part of or extension of him/her/it thus you are attempting to describe the properties of that in which we are contained from within and using parts of the container as the description. To describe somthing in terms of itself can only be approximate and the same is true of description in general, we can only approximate an object in words, pictures and ideas. Our understanding of that which we cannot replicate is incomplete and there is nothing that we can create, we can only manipulate our surroundings as we are a part of them.
In order for somthing to be the creator of somthing else it must be of a fundamentally different nature. We can manipulate patterns, this can be considered creative, but we cannot create matter or change physical law, we are bound by it and try our best to work around it to master our surroundings, but we do not have ultimate control over our surroundings because we are of them. A constituent of a whole,i.e. logic, cannot be used to describe it completely, it falls into an infinite loop (yes I do enjoy proof by infinite loops and contradictions but who doesn't) when describing itself.

[Zetherin]

Pondering the existence of anything isn't stupid.

[Aedes]

The efforts to 'prove' God in European philosophy has ONLY to do with the fact that reason and logic are held as important -- and thus reason has been used as a tool to validate preexisting religious beliefs. To 'disprove' God is a reaction to this, though it actually makes less sense than the effort to affirmatively prove God. It makes more sense to attack the rationality of religion than to rationally disprove God.

[Ramsey]

Question? What if God is not creator?

And if God exists logic, then how can he also exist within it? For example... Miracles, and faith experiences.

But then again, Language proves a gap here. When we sometimes say we are trying to argue for or against God, sometimes that God might only be a Superhuman entity or other higher deity, and not God, as we know it.

For example, which God are we proving? A Christian God? a Buddhist God ect..

I think of it this way. We're not trying to prove the existence of a God, but more we're trying to find out whether all this morality crap is actually worth while.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Ramsey

Question? What if God is not creator?

And if God exists logic, then how can he also exist within it? For example... Miracles, and faith experiences.

But then again, Language proves a gap here. When we sometimes say we are trying to argue for or against God, sometimes that God might only be a Superhuman entity or other higher deity, and not God, as we know it.

For example, which God are we proving? A Christian God? a Buddhist God ect..

I think of it this way. We're not trying to prove the existence of a God, but more we're trying to find out whether all this morality crap is actually worth while.

This morality crap can still be worthwhile, even without the existence of a God. I believe kindness is powerful. There aren't many things that I find concrete in this existence, but it's really hard to deny how peace and kindness bring humanity together...an ability to understand, to transcend our discriminations. I don't know the answers to all of humanity's problems, but I do know that if we aren't peaceful and work as one, nothing will get fixed (And no, I don't want this to just sound like a cliche, as I contemplate this daily...sometimes to a cause of a headache). So, when I'm kind to someone, I'm not doing it because I'm trying to look "good" in God's eyes (I'm actually agnostic), I do it because I feel it benefits humanity.

Listen, as for the OP, I really don't know where to go with this. I mean, there a number of topics in which we can say we just aren't capable of understanding, yet we still contemplate. That's something we must consider, and is something the study epistemology taps into -a n attempt to analyze what our limits are, knowledge-wise. However, this shouldn't stop us from contemplation! On the contrary, we must keep contemplating in order to really see our limit! We can't just say it's not possible, else the study will be in vain! Remember, there have been many things that have enlightened us in the past in which we initially thought we would never be able to comprehend (Take a look at the Hadron Collider).

It's most certainly not stupid to contemplate God, regardless of the notion you choose to explore.

[Didymos Thomas]

If we pin down a particular notion of God, then I see no problem exploring the logical coherency of that notion.

God by all accounts is beyond human understanding otherwise he would be useless as he would hold no answers that we could not potentially know without him.

By all accounts? Again, I have to disagree. As far as I can tell, some suggest that understanding God is extremely important.

[Zetetic11235]

It seems that if we can understand god he hold no answers that we do not or rather cannot. If he is beyond us, then he holds no answer that we can comprehend in our current form or any form that our current form can understand assuming that humans somehow can transcend our current form which is a very wild presumtion.
Forgive me for being so brash in my presentation, I find it to be the quckest way to lay all cards on the table for sorting and discarding. I at no point said that the consideration of god or a creator is stupid, you misunderstood the structure and meaning of my statement. I simply stated that any attempt to prove or disprove a creator is irrational.
To didymos, perhapse I should have clarified; I meant more specifically a creator, all creation myths included. The very concept of a creator is somthing which has no grounding logically because logic begs the question of who/what created the creator and it turns into an infinite line of reactions with no solid base. That being said, logic cannot be used in discrediting a creator theory because it has little to no place in such an idea unless the creator is of similar nature to us in which case see above arguments.
I again reiterate that I am in no way attacking those who believe or disbelieve in a creator; nor am I attacking considerations based upon the assumptions of a creators existence or nonexistence, but rather I hold that logic is not sufficient in proving or disproving a creator.

[Mephistopheles]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Pondering the existence of anything isn't stupid.

I absolutely agree and lend my full support to you. Philosophy is never stupid.

How do I "thank" you for your post?

[Mephistopheles]

Originally Posted by Ramsey

Question? What if God is not creator?

And if God exists logic, then how can he also exist within it? For example... Miracles, and faith experiences.

But then again, Language proves a gap here. When we sometimes say we are trying to argue for or against God, sometimes that God might only be a Superhuman entity or other higher deity, and not God, as we know it.

For example, which God are we proving? A Christian God? a Buddhist God ect..

I think of it this way. We're not trying to prove the existence of a God, but more we're trying to find out whether all this morality crap is actually worth while.

I don't mean to make you feel bad but I am both utterly confused and absolutely in shock of what you just said because it's one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm attacking your statements.

I mean, come on, "What if God is not creator?" I can't think of a single theistic ideology that doesn't think of God or a God as a creator...

"And if God exists logic, then how can he also exist within it? For example... Miracles, and faith experiences." Now what the hell is that supposed to mean? If "God exists logic"? Orange windows mango fruit?

Now another problem I have with your post is this: "When we sometimes say we are trying to argue for or against God, sometimes that God might only be a Superhuman entity or other higher deity, and not God, as we know it." If someone is arguing for or against the CONCEPT of God then that CONCEPT is, to that individual, God. So what you said was equally stupid as the previous comments.

"a Buddhist God ect.." Buddhists don't believe in a God.

I'm sorry, honestly. If I'm going to be reported or banned for this, so be it, I can accept that. I am just pointing out I am offended by the absolute nonsensical nature and stupidity of his guy's post. It frankly pisses me off it's so stupid.

Again, I'm sorry for lowering myself to being extremely harsh but I'm sure everyone here has called someone stupid before so let's be fair here.

[Zetetic11235]

Originally Posted by Mephistopheles

I absolutely agree and lend my full support to you. Philosophy is never stupid.

How do I "thank" you for your post?

I stated twice that he misunderstood what I wrote and put words into my mouth, I never attacked the process of consideration, just of proof or disproff as it is not applicable to the subject, please read posts more carefully and I will do my best to try to word things more clearly.
We haven't even considered the problem I adressed much yet.