You ask several questions, then call my position nonsense without supporting your positions. What makes my opinion non-sense or less sense then your position?
My questions are only to understand the ideas and where they came from. My position is as a person who is searching and sincerely interested in what others think and how they came to their conclusions. I challenge people's ideas and many times they don't like it. What I have found is that every belief or non-belief position taken has flaws. To me spirituality or even non-spirituality is more personal choice than anything. Religion, Atheism etc... is more what people choose to believe collectively and not as important as individual spitituality in my opinion.
If you look at the human parent-child relationship, God is an absentee parent. First of all God acts like he/she/it is hiding. No direct communication, intervention, or guidance. Everything that comes from "God" is in the form of feelings and things imagined.
There is said to be 10 or even 11 dimensions to exist. We humans exist in 4 dimensions that have consistent laws of physics. It is believed that these laws of physics were created so that our universe makes sense to us and without these conditions we could not exist. In other words as sentient beings 4 dimensions are all we can handle. The bible claims humans couldn't exist in the presence of God. If you consider a being that can exist in 10 or 11 dimensions to our 4 that is a reasonable conclusion to come to. Even the bible states: And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
That probably seems far fetched to you, I understand. But when you look at our existence and how it works it makes sense to me. So I do find a problem with the premise that God is absent just because He doesn't exist in the same form as humans. Being "almighty" and able to exist in human form is possible but look what happened when Jesus existed. Still there were many who did not believe.
People do like to rationalize why they did not get on that bus that rolled down the side of the mountain. Was it because God was looking out for them or they just happened to be in the right place at the right time?
You are correct some people do think this but it isn't as important as what I would believe in the same situation. What others believe is their choice if they want to think God was looking out for them then so be it. If someone believes in God and that all things happen as a part of God's design it makes sense to be thankful to God.
Just because we do not understand everything about our existence and the universe we inhabit, does not mean all of the unknowns floating around equates to a loving, caring, father deity. That is exactly what primitive mankind did. Everything they did not understand, every adverse weather event was attributed to an angry God. Today, I feel confidant that those in the know are beyond that tendency. However, this does not disprove a intelligent deity who might hold dominion over the Universe. Yes, it is possible, but the choices are all equally as likely: its choice is to remain hidden, it is oblivious to us, it does not exist as we imagine it to be, or it is completely beyond our comprehension. Each choice could be right, but none can be picked with certainty.
While it isn't possible to know everything about everything I do believe it is important that my beliefs are consistent with my worldview. Why? Because from what I have seen people tend to get emotionally attached to their worldview. That's why many get angry when their worldview is challenged.
Before the 20th century Atheists assumed the universe was eternal. It wasn't until Einstien's Theory of General Relativity and early evidence that it became apparent that our universe was expanding. This also showed the universe had a beginning as believed by The Big Bang Theory (not the TV show, just kidding). Attempts to get around this idea have all met with observational difficulties so The Big Bang Theory is generally accepted by cosmologists. Since it is accepted that the universe had a beginning the possibility of a super intelligent being as cause can't be ruled out. This is how I ruled out Atheism. Also, the physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist. This suggests to me more of a grand design because the odds of anything else are phenominal. So, for me at least, there is evidence for the existence of God.
You mean the purple dragon? God has no more authenticity, than a purple dragon. That is the truth for anyone not all ready assimilated into theist mind set. You say we run away from God. That happens in the same manner as every other fantasy out there- pixies, ghosts, aliens, etc. What makes a difference is when some evidence appears to support these notions.
Exactly, I described the evidence above, for me at least, for the existence of a Grand Designer of the grand design.
There are two issues. #1 if God is a parent, he is an absentee parent as I explained above when compared to the traditional parent-child relationship. He is not there in any kind of meaningful sense. Yes, we can imagine a lot of things, but that is nothing like a parent guiding a child.
But even in the traditional parent-child relationship the parent doesn't always guide the child. Children grow up into adults and generally take charge of their own life and make their own choices. They move out on their own and have a different relationship with the parents. I don't think humans were meant to be permanently super dependent as to require the presence of something or someone to take care of them.
#2 God, purple dragon, etc, etc, all fall into the same unsubstantiated category. If you think God is whispering in your ear, who is not to say it's not a purple dragon doing the whispering?
I agree with you here which probably explains why God doesn't make his presence known. How would He do it in a manner that would make it believable to us?
Who wishes to control you ask? Just about every religion that exists on this planet. Go turn on the T.V. for lots of examples.
If they are trying to control they are wasting their time. The world seems pretty divided to me.
It is religion that calls God, our Father which assumes something akin to a human parent/child relationship.
Something "akin" to a human parent/child relationship. The premise here draws a direct connection by comparing God to a finite situation. So the premise is really invalid.
I mention God as a terrible parent because it does not act as such and it probably does not exist like popular religions think it does (if at all). I'm critiquing the "sacrifice" argument precisely because it's a sacrifice based on human perception, something that ancient man might think. Duh, look at where all the scriptures that modern religion is based upon... ancient man.
Yes it was based on human perception as it was intended. How else was man to get the point of it?
If we know that our Earthly existence is just a flash, but Heaven is for eternity, and you keep the big perspective, then Heaven is more the reality than Earth is. Hence, it's not that big of a sacrifice for God to sacrifice Jesus on the cross.
Maybe not in the grand scheme of things but what was the purpose of it other than a message to mankind? So far many, many people have heard the story of the sacrifice so it seems to have had a big impact. Would the message have made such a huge impact if Jesus had just retired and moved to the Persian Gulf? Seems like an ingeniuos way of getting the point across.
Mostly what we see in religious based discussion are opinions. However when a religion establishes what it calls specific truths, then there is a basis to pick it apart, because it is Faith, not truth. Is there any basis what so ever to believe in Adam and Eve, The Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark and the Great Flood? I say no. At one point in time, all of these stories held sway with those who want and imagine a God who takes care of them. It feels good. But as science has marched forward, these things can easily be discounted. You disagree? No we don't have everything figured out, but as time goes by, more and more will be understandable to us.
It is Faith but also written word. If GIA is going to use these "myths" to base his premises on then he should at least provide the sripture to show how he came to his conclusion. Many religions show scripture as a way to back up what they believe and I don't put alot of trust in those that don't.
If there is enough information, "truth" can be determined. But lacking information it's tough to analyze and categorize opinions as sensible or non-sensible. BTW, this kind of a conversation is more enjoyable than hurling insults at one another. I'm not here to demean, but here to learn or at least to consider other opinions...
Exactly, but GIA doesn't even provide information as to how he came to his conclusion. He merely preaches and expects others to believe his nonsense.
I agree this kind of conversation is more enjoyable. Thanks for responding in a respectful manner.
