accepting that there are some things that are unknowable is one thing. accepting the unknowable, as you put it, is another. i agree we must accept that some things are unknowable, even while encouraging those who seek that knowledge to go for it; what i may not know, a scientist with talent in that direction may discover. but to just accept the unknowable? that's like "god works in mysterious ways." that i will never do.

g

@genessa Thank you for comment. Think of it this way: And this applies to scientists as well as the rest of us. When you proceed under the unknowable there are no limits. You your thoughts are not circuscribed by any preconceived notions. You are not trying to prove what you think you already know. You are totally open to accept things that reveal themselves. But when you are locked into the finite your horizons disappear. You are now limited. Even when you have proved your theory when you are aware of the vastness of things you can recognize things you missed and can go further in your quest. But finite proof can lock you into slippery mistakes. So by accepting the unknowable you are open minded. Your horizon is infinite. You are part of the vastness of everything instead of being in the limited.

@think-beyond sorry, but my statement stands. accepting the concept of the unknowable does what you say. accepting the unknowable itself does not. it leads to belief in tooth fairies and deities.

g

@genessa All I can say is that if I taught my students with preconceived idea they would not progress. I am constantly finding "them" and am then able to enhance their individuality. I live by this as did my husband who put the first space crafts on the moon.

@think-beyond okay you didn't understand what i said... twice. i am not talking about preconceived ideas. but twice is enough. if you didn't get it the first two times, you won't get it a third. and by the way, i taught my students to find things out for themselves and not accept what they were told without questioning. i didn't tell them to blindly accept the unknowable, which is the only way to accept it.

g

I can see where that definition might work in a practical sense for many discussions, however, IMO in an ultimate sense it doesn’t say much. All it says is that God is not limited by the parameters of our everyday perception of reality—it doesn’t really define God, except to say that God is what is beyond our normal realm of existence.

Maybe to a fish God is what is beyond the water, A theistic fish would say that “Beyond the Water” is the divine creator who sustains and provides. An agnostic fish would say that BTW is unknown and unknowable. An atheist fish would say there’s ZERO evidence for btw(s) and that he is withholding belief in such entities, and that the burden of proof is on the fish making a positive assertion. A few spiritually oriented fish might report having leapt out of the water and gaining brief glimmers of BTW, but they would be derided by the others as offering anecdotal evidence based on superstition and wu.

Maybe God is what we don’t know, if there be such.

@WilliamFleming In my post I should have said the orthodox THEISTIC concept of God is defined by the three ”omni”-s, and I’m pretty sure that’s correct—i.e., it holds for orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Accordingly, people are theists, atheists, and agnostics according to whether they believe there exists such a being. Of course, there are unorthodox Jews, Christians, and Muslims who believe a supreme being exists but conceive it differently, and there are polytheists and other forms of supernaturalism. So this definition is narrower and—as you point out—is more practical in some discussions.
One problem I have with your suggestion (in an earlier post) to use Ultimate Reality is that I have no idea of what that is and, hence, I don’t know what would count as evidence for or against its existence (unless you “define it into existence” by saying “it is whatever is most real”.) This nearly reminds me of Paul Tillich’s expression that “God is the ground of being” or sometimes “--the ground and abyss of being”—whatever that means!
I like your fish illustration!

@Wallace Thanks for your reply. I don’t actually say that Ultimate Reality is God, but I’ve seen it described that way. I am so befuddled, ignorant, and overwhelmed with the basic enigmas of existence and consciousness that I have no coherent ideas to add to any discussion about God.

I only refer to “Ultimate” Reality because reality as perceived by us humans is an illusion IMO. We are looking at shadows but something is causing those shadows. We consciously create OUR reality, but in truth there is only the one reality, or nature if you’d prefer.

I don’t argue over the existence of God. From a cosmic perspective, existence, along with creation, destruction, death, immortality, heaven, and afterlife are all meaningless concepts used by us pea-brained humans within our dream world. I base that on my interpretation of “Reality is not What it Seems” by Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli.

From that perspective the “omnis” don’t seem all that grand or impressive as characteristics. To be everywhere at once and at all times fits right in with modern physics. Since there are a finite number of granules of space, each of the size of a planck length, then “knowing” the state of those finite particles of space would seem natural, but you might have to tinker with the meaning of “know”. Being all-powerful WITHIN OUR DREAM WORLD is not inconceivable but there has to be intention. As an analogy, within system parameters a programmer creating a computer game has total control over his simulated environment.

We organisms have conscious awareness and intention, and on the level of Ultimate Reality might collectively be “God” or an extension or expression of Universal Consciousness.

@WilliamFleming I think we pretty well agree. Certainly I am so "..befuddled, ignorant, and overwhelmed with the basic enigmas of existence and consciousness..." that I have nothing new to contribute to the discussion. Peace.

@ToolGuy " If they did not get significance, then they would have to accept the null hypothesis."

• No, that's when they move the goalpost. Sometimes to an entirely different sport.
  There will always be another height, dept or dimensional barrier that "gods" can hide behind. Or, s/he/it has simply used those "god powers" to make reality appear as if there was no god - as a test of faith.
  One of my least favorite religious responses.

If we could fight faith with facts, there would be no religion now.

@ToolGuy I know, but do we have evidence of that that is demonstrable?