Why it is hard to think beyond God?

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

Well the universe's existence is currently illogical according to human comprehension

 

[Inco G. Nito]

Well the universe's existence is currently illogical according to human comprehension

No shit. That's like trying to understand the intentions of the person who came up with chess using only the rules of chess as your frame of reference. Anything beyond the resulting limitations of the rules themselves are entirely conjecture. If your only frame of existence was chess, anything outside of the rigid ruleset of the gameboard would seem like fantasy. There is nothing stopping an all powerful creator from simply willing reality into existence, with the reasons behind the core principles of physics acting as they do simply being "Because I said so.".

 

[Brightstar777]

No shit. That's like trying to understand the intentions of the person who came up with chess using only the rules of chess as your frame of reference. Anything beyond the resulting limitations of the rules themselves are entirely conjecture. If your only frame of existence was chess, anything outside of the rigid ruleset of the gameboard would seem like fantasy. There is nothing stopping an all powerful creator from simply willing reality into existence, with the reasons behind the core principles of physics acting as they do simply being "Because I said so.".

I think you might be wrong

 

[Meriasek]

No shit. That's like trying to understand the intentions of the person who came up with chess using only the rules of chess as your frame of reference. Anything beyond the resulting limitations of the rules themselves are entirely conjecture. If your only frame of existence was chess, anything outside of the rigid ruleset of the gameboard would seem like fantasy. There is nothing stopping an all powerful creator from simply willing reality into existence, with the reasons behind the core principles of physics acting as they do simply being "Because I said so.".

That's a different thing, I think. If you just want to understand the universe, it'd be like observing a chess game and infering the rules of the game from observation. That is entirely possible*. Understanding the creator of the game isn't really a possible through that, only the broadest assumptions can be made.
I like to think of things like this as projections of a threedimensional object unto a twodimensional plane. Like a shadow, for example. The same object can cast an infinite variety of shadows, and seeing only the shadow it's really hard to make more than educated guesses about the true nature of the object. If you were a twodimensional being that doesn't really have the capacity to even think in three dimensions, it'd be impossible.
We are three dimensional beings, and while we have mathematical tools to describe us more than three dimensions, we still imagine them as projections unto three spatial dimensions.
I'm not trying to say that God would be a higher dimensional being of sorts (although that might as well be the case in a way, like a three dimensional human painting a two dimensional world), it's more trying to explain the abstract concept of how God is fundamentally unknowable, and trying to think beyond that is even more nonsensical.

* That being said, the universe is so complex that it might not be possible to gain a full understanding of it within the frame of the universe itself. Somethingsomething information theory and whatnot.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

That's a different thing, I think. If you just want to understand the universe, it'd be like observing a chess game and infering the rules of the game from observation.

Understanding the universe and understanding where the universe came from are different. Like I said, everything inside of our box is waiting to be discovered, but we can't get outside of the box to see what is out there. Therefore everything outside of the box is conjecture.

If you were a twodimensional being that doesn't really have the capacity to even think in three dimensions, it'd be impossible.
We are three dimensional beings, and while we have mathematical tools to describe us more than three dimensions, we still imagine them as projections unto three spatial dimensions.

That's not a limitatation of our ability to think. It's a limitation of experience. The world is three dimensional, you live in, have experience in, and are naturally adept at navigating a 3D environment. However, where there is a rhyme there is a reason, and one could teach themselves to navigate a 4 dimensional envoironment with practice. Your ability to conceptualize is unlimited, your ability to visualize is limited by experience.

it's more trying to explain the abstract concept of how God is fundamentally unknowable, and trying to think beyond that is even more nonsensical.

The way I interpreted the question of "thinking beyond God" was as "Why is it so hard for people to think beyond (theological) God?" As in, come up with their own beliefs or otherwise think critically of the entire theology as it is presented. Literally thinking beyond 'God' and into the implications of how God is presented in the faith and how he is depicted by the people who wrote about him.

 

[not william stenchever]

I'm just a monkey with a machinegun. I'm going to leave the real deep thinks to the big man.

 

[NvII iS 8ulLt f0R 88C]

View attachment 6424250

Yes, yes, yes, to discipline me. Where this faggot "paradox" goes wrong however is that God wants you to be free (not a preprogrammed robot) and make the right choice even when confronted with appetizing sin (virtue). God loves us unconditionally, thus he forgives sins; but lets the consequences of our actions play out, so we can build virtue. Our goal is to not be dependent on candy but God and to find happiness not in candy but God (as that is true happiness), which couldn't happen if God did not withhold candy. The guy making this image does not understand why Jesus overcame the world.

 

[Str8Bustah]

Yes, yes, yes, to discipline me. Where this faggot "paradox" goes wrong however is that God wants you to be free (not a preprogrammed robot) and make the right choice even when confronted with appetizing sin (virtue). God loves us unconditionally, thus he forgives sins; but lets the consequences of our actions play out, so we can build virtue. Our goal is to not be dependent on candy but God and to find happiness not in candy but God (as that is true happiness), which couldn't happen if God did not withhold candy. The guy making this image does not understand why Jesus overcame the world.

Excellent post but I thought the babycandy paradox was making fun of people who think God is evil (they're depicted as babies who's only conception of good is candy-which at the end of the day might taste nice, but it will make you really fat in the long run, fuck your teeth up, make you sick if you eat a large amount in a small session, riddle you with guilt for overindulgence. Sort of like sin, actually; temptation and the initial fall might feel alright at first, but every fall has a bottom, and when you smack into the floor, you really feel it)