Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Beyond our Ken" is a phrase that refers to the idea that God's ways are "beyond" our ways, thus human reasoning is insufficient to explain the actions of God. It is often used to justify things that are seemingly incongruous in theism, such as the existence of evil or avoidable suffering.
However, if it is in fact true that God's ways are beyond our ways, it would seem that we should recognize our inability to understand or predict his actions in all areas. It is possible, then, that God is a liar. Yes, I realize God has said he isn't a liar, but if his ways are beyond ours, it is possible that he has some very good reason for lying to us and telling us he is being truthful. It is also possible that he has entirely fabricated the general Christian narrative, heaven, etc.
My point is that, if we actually believe God's ways are truly beyond our ways, we must also recognize that we might be wrong about everything that we have come to know solely because God said so.
"Beyond our Ken" is a phrase that refers to the idea that God's ways are "beyond" our ways, thus human reasoning is insufficient to explain the actions of God. It is often used to justify things that are seemingly incongruous in theism, such as the existence of evil or avoidable suffering.
However, if it is in fact true that God's ways are beyond our ways, it would seem that we should recognize our inability to understand or predict his actions in all areas. It is possible, then, that God is a liar. Yes, I realize God has said he isn't a liar, but if his ways are beyond ours, it is possible that he has some very good reason for lying to us and telling us he is being truthful. It is also possible that he has entirely fabricated the general Christian narrative, heaven, etc.
My point is that, if we actually believe God's ways are truly beyond our ways, we must also recognize that we might be wrong about everything that we have come to know solely because God said so.
Yep. I've been saying pretty much the same thing for the past ... I dunnae ... two years or so now?
Certain Christians have always defended God's atrocious actions in the OT by saying, essentially: "God is God so he can do whatever he wants."
Oh yeah? So ... if God does not have to abide by any moral code that we humans can recognize, that makes God untrustworthy. After all, if he can murder us or play mind games with us and treat us in any way he desires, lying to us seems pretty small potatoes compared to, say, committing genocide against the entire human race (save 8 or 9 people on an ark).
Therefore, how do you know that there's a glorious paradise waiting for you on "the other side?" How do you know he's not just saying that to curry your blind obedience? In fact, you can't really bank on anything God has ever said about anything since, as you say, he can do whatever he wants. Right?
It's amazing how they continue to back themselves into these corners.
"Beyond our ken" is just another way of shrugging one's shoulders and saying, "No idea ... I don't have an answer to that."
It is more than even saying 'we cannot understand' and leaving it at that. Quite apart from saying 'we can't understand' and then understanding down to the last miniscule detail of instruction and control, we are told that what we do understand we really don't because it debunks a book that we are supposed to take as a guide and textbook for living and thinking, even if we can't possibly understand it
Oh, no...they can't get away with saying that we can understand the book, but we can't understand God. If we can understand the book, then we can (and do) debunk it. And Not Understand becomes an excuse for refusing to accept what we for sure do understand.
There are many ways of playing this trick.
"It's metaphorical'
'It doesn't mean that - you need to Interpret, go translation -shopping, not think we can apply modern ways of thought or writing to a book that nevertheless we are supposed to take as a reliable guide to life.'
It all comes down to the same thing - excuses to reject the unsavoury truth that the Bible is a crock.
For sure, there are those who (with some still declaring that atheists are refusing closed -mindedly to see the truth) will give into what atheists have proven and scrap the Bible, and just go irreligious Christian or Sortagod agnostic.
There those of that ilk with whom, Trouts knows, I could share a flat, provided they didn't listen to Rap. But there are others, and I won't name VP or Bulma as it would be...oops...sorry.... who are more vicious, insulting and vitriolic towards atheists even than our Fundy Creationists because we still reserve belief about this God we can't supposedly understand, even though they have scrapped the Bible we debunked. So they have only Godfaith with nothing to back it up. Though some try to make a case out of First Cause
We had one cautiously try to back it up with ID/IC. I reckon he is still sitting with his tail in a bucket of water.
This 'don't understand' ploy (whether we are not supposed to be able to understand God himself, or his nature, Plan or the Book he supposedly inspired (1) is not even a good excuse to keep on believing, never mind a reason TO believe. It is a reason to doubt. And to doubt means that there is good reason to not believe. Not unless you really want to. And that is why 'don't understand' is no more than an excuse by those who really want to go on believing to push away all the doubts and just rely on Faith, Faith and yet more bloody Faith.
(1) which being translated from Theist into English meaneths: "all the bits that are bad, contradictory or dead wrong, despite a lot of effort to try to make them work, can be sidelined as somehow man's fault. Anything else that hasn't been undeniably debunked can still be presented as God's reliable word".
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-29-2017 at 04:59 AM..
It is more than even saying 'we cannot understand' and leaving it at that. Quite apart from saying 'we can't understand' and then understanding down to the last miniscule detail of instruction and control, we are told that what we do understand we really don't because it debunks a book that we are supposed to take as a guide and textbook for living and thinking, even if we can't possibly understand it. [snip]
Yep, yep, and more yeps.
(I have to do it this way since my ability to rep people seems to have been permanently curtailed)
Sure, this was the point of Descartes' evil demon hypothesis, whereby there might be an evil demon "as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me." But the same rationale would deflate atheism as well. One is reduced to Descartes' famous axiom that all he can really be sure of is that he exists.
Any dogmatic statement about ultimate reality is misguided, which is why religious fundamentalists and atheistic fundamentalists appear equally silly. Any metaphysical system must at least acknowledge the possibility that it is completely off-base. There might be a God, there might not, or ultimate reality might be so different from what we can conceive that both positions will be seen to be absurd.
Christians (and most other species of believers) accept that God is a transcendent being whose thoughts are not our thoughts, whose ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8). If God is a supreme intelligence occupying a level of reality outside the one he has created for us, one who exists in eternity and has that perspective, then it is self-evident that he is "beyond our ken." We understand only what he has chosen to reveal to us and must trust (if we are Christians) that his plan will ultimately be seen to be one of love and justice as he promises even if it doesn't always appear that way from our perspective.
I see no disconnect whatsoever in someone reaching a level of conviction that Christianity (or any other religion) is true, yet accepting that the God he worships must always remain a mysterious, transcendent being. (And, as stated previously, accepting at least the possibility that his convictions might ultimately prove to be entirely off-base, even to the point that there is no God at all.)
It seems to me that atheistic attacks on religion are always skewed in an extremely anthropomorphic way: This isn't the world I would have created if I were God. This isn't what life would look life if I were God. No human parent would act this way and call it love and justice. If I were God I would have revealed myself a lot more fully. All true, perhaps, but entirely irrelevant. Like a toddler being spanked by a parent for playing in the street, we don't know what love, justice and the overall plan might look like from the perspective of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal supreme intelligence.
"Beyond our Ken" is a phrase that refers to the idea that God's ways are "beyond" our ways, thus human reasoning is insufficient to explain the actions of God. It is often used to justify things that are seemingly incongruous in theism, such as the existence of evil or avoidable suffering.
However, if it is in fact true that God's ways are beyond our ways, it would seem that we should recognize our inability to understand or predict his actions in all areas. It is possible, then, that God is a liar. Yes, I realize God has said he isn't a liar, but if his ways are beyond ours, it is possible that he has some very good reason for lying to us and telling us he is being truthful. It is also possible that he has entirely fabricated the general Christian narrative, heaven, etc.
My point is that, if we actually believe God's ways are truly beyond our ways, we must also recognize that we might be wrong about everything that we have come to know solely because God said so.
Perhaps with the same logic, you should not believe in science because there are ways in nature that science cannot explain. These things are beyond science.
IMO, we as humans have a limited knowledge but it's sufficient enough to live our lives with a purpose. There will never be a time where we know and fully understand EVERYTHING - cuz if we do, then we are not humans anymore - we become God.
Perhaps with the same logic, you should not believe in science because there are ways in nature that science cannot explain. These things are beyond science.
IMO, we as humans have a limited knowledge but it's sufficient enough to live our lives with a purpose. There will never be a time where we know and fully understand EVERYTHING - cuz if we do, then we are not humans anymore - we become God.
Sure, this was the point of Descartes' evil demon hypothesis, whereby there might be an evil demon "as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me." But the same rationale would deflate atheism as well. One is reduced to Descartes' famous axiom that all he can really be sure of is that he exists.
The critical difference is that Descartes wasn't simultaneously claiming to know some aspects of what the evil demon wanted. My argument here is not simply that god's ways might be fundamentally beyond ours. It is that, if we believe there is a god whose ways are fundamentally beyond ours, we should arrive at the conclusion that we can't know anything about what he wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troglodyte74
Any dogmatic statement about ultimate reality is misguided, which is why religious fundamentalists and atheistic fundamentalists appear equally silly. Any metaphysical system must at least acknowledge the possibility that it is completely off-base. There might be a God, there might not, or ultimate reality might be so different from what we can conceive that both positions will be seen to be absurd.
Of course. We make certain assumptions in philosophy, and one of them is that the world has some basic level of "understandability." I'm not sure what this has to do with the inconsistency of saying at once that god can't be understood and that we understand him, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troglodyte74
Christians (and most other species of believers) accept that God is a transcendent being whose thoughts are not our thoughts, whose ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8). If God is a supreme intelligence occupying a level of reality outside the one he has created for us, one who exists in eternity and has that perspective, then it is self-evident that he is "beyond our ken." We understand only what he has chosen to reveal to us and must trust (if we are Christians) that his plan will ultimately be seen to be one of love and justice as he promises even if it doesn't always appear that way from our perspective.
But if he is beyond our Ken, how do we know that his plan will ultimately be seen to be one of love and justice as he promises? That is my point. You are claiming to understand something about god's ways while at the same time saying his ways are fundamentally beyond your ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troglodyte74
It seems to me that atheistic attacks on religion are always skewed in an extremely anthropomorphic way: This isn't the world I would have created if I were God. This isn't what life would look life if I were God. No human parent would act this way and call it love and justice. If I were God I would have revealed myself a lot more fully. All true, perhaps, but entirely irrelevant. Like a toddler being spanked by a parent for playing in the street, we don't know what love, justice and the overall plan might look like from the perspective of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal supreme intelligence.
If you are accepting that he is beyond our ken in this way, you should also accept that it is possible he has completely lied to you in every way possible and that you know nothing about how you should live your life. Again, if he is fundamentally beyond you, how is it possible for you to conclude that you know what he wants in any area? How have you concluded that it is more likely he is being honest than lying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Perhaps with the same logic, you should not believe in science because there are ways in nature that science cannot explain. These things are beyond science.
IMO, we as humans have a limited knowledge but it's sufficient enough to live our lives with a purpose. There will never be a time where we know and fully understand EVERYTHING - cuz if we do, then we are not humans anymore - we become God.
Nature isn't fundamentally beyond the reach of science. That is what "beyond our ken" means, and it doesn't apply to the relationship between nature and science.
My point is that you cannot have this middle ground of "I can know some things about what god wants, but I can't know them all." If he is fundamentally non-understandable to humans, we can know nothing about what he wants.
Well, 'He', Who has no gender, can be understood if one believes what He said thru Jeremiah...nothing is really mysterious at all!
I happen to believe what he said...ch 23, off the top......but he who does boast, let
him boast of this that he knows and understands me...so saith the Lord.
Now do I believe He was/is a murderous, vengeful God...no...I do believe 'He' made a brilliant Universal System of 'What goes around comes around', tho.
People have a hard time with that, saying karma is bad...when all it is is
reaping what you sow.
If you could market faith like that as a soap powder, you'd corner the market - no matter what colours you put in together, they all come out shining white.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
