Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ritesign
So "Have Gun" Will Ravel, what you're postulating is that God is just a concept we use to feel safe and snuggly, and the more we learn through the sciences, the less use we have for God, correct?
|
God is an interim concept that acts like intellectual training wheels.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ritesign
But what if we assume that God is more of a passive entity, which exists, is responsible for the creation of the universe, but no longer plays a direct role (such as providing light by being a large flaming ball of gas)? Rather God is one hell of a billiards player who lined up one hell of a shot that got the universe into motion and this shot will be responsible for it's ultimate end. Or, without the need to mention creation, God is an entity that has existed since before the universe if such a thing is logically possible, or since it's beginning if that is the logical alternative (since God's omnipotence and omnipresense presupposes logical coherence, thus ignoring criticisms such as "can't God create a rock so large, it can't be lifted" or "can't God create a round square"). Are these not logical possibilities?
|
They are possibilities, but not logical. No reason exists to believe in an active or passive supernatural entity. Usually the idea of the passive god comes from an attempt to compromise on faith because one cannot win an argument against agnostic atheism.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ritesign
As for religions role in society and politics, or the authenticity of scripture, or the validity of extremists, I don't see how these disprove an omni(scient-potent-present) God's exsistence, or make such a belief rediculous. Does it make literal interpretation of scripture as God's word rediculous? Sure, it would appear so. Does it make appeals to God fallacious? Most definately. But does a failure to find God in the sun, or a stream, or on Mars mean that such a belief is absurd? No, especially if you weren't looking in any of those places from the beginning, or they were simply failed hypotheses on the way to a more accurate answer.
|
They are symptomatic of the dangers of becoming trapped in theism. You can't disconnect ancient theism with today's theism. While the Judeo-Christian god is not an explanation for the sun or the tides, he is much the same an explanation for meaning. While only some theists rely on theism for explanations in nature (creationsim), most if not all theists seek philosophical meaning in god. With this philosophy comes the belief in the existence of god, not as a concept, but as a being. That's where the problems set in again because there is a disconnect (or even regression) with our understanding of reality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ritesign
(Rant, ignore this if you wish to preserve brain cells)
Lastly, does turning on an idea ingrained in your head since birth make you enviable? No, in most cases, it makes you crazy. Does it make you brave? Maybe, but only if your new belief brings you into a state more dangerous than your previous one. Last I heard, they've called off burning atheists at the stake, so I think you're safe.
"The fact of the matter is, it makes no difference if god exists or not." Oh, and you'd figure that would make a lot of difference about a lot of things...
|
It's brave not only because it's difficult, but because at the beginning of the process, you're under the impression that you're risking damnation. By my understanding, damnation is nothing to sneeze at.