Originally Posted by Nicato
You are (once again) wrong in your characterization of me. That things exist which transcend our ability to understand may in fact exist. What I'm saying is if they are inherently unknowable, then they are neither worth discussing nor believing and that you posit one of an infinite number of equally plausible hypothesises is in no by no means intellectually satisfying.
I'm sorry you find the idea of God "intellectually unsatisfying." But it's not a scientific hypothesis, and shouldn't be treated as such. Again this really just goes back to the whole point behind the thread. If something transcends our ability to be understood through naturalism alone, does that mean we have no means to understand it at all? Science by definition is only able to observe that which is subject to the laws within our own existential bubble. As long as you adhere to the idea that only that which can be scientifically observed exists or can be known, you won't be able to grasp the validity of faith and spirituality in the human experience. Faith is the idea, a perfectly reasonable one in my estimation based on the clear limitations of science, that there are things beyond this bubble we live in, and that we have a means to connect with them that brings greater fulfillment, direction and purpose to our lives.