Christianity and Love

[Micro_Furry]

I have read absolutely everything in this thread. (Yes, EVERY post, not skipping.) And I must say - the little agnostic nigglings are gone now, and all of a sudden I feel a whole hell of a lot better about being who I am - imperfect, bi, and so forth yes, but me. I don’t have to justify my existence or my feelings or my loves to a deity who defines himself out of existence in his own holy book.

Thanks Esprix, David B., et all and especially thanks Gaudere, for your sound reasoning and excellent points. If there’s ever an election for some mortal schmuck to be elevated to Goddess then you’ll get my vote.

[David_B]

FriendofGod said:

All that I can say is – God IS totally logical. So IF there’s a lack of logic in our understanding of Him, it’s US who are missing something, not God!

Talk about illogical. You are starting with the basis that God must be totally logical – because you believe it to be so. Then you are using that basis to argue that God is totally logical. Then you are going from there to say that if there is anything we don’t understand, we must be missing something. Why? Because God is totally logical.

So it doesn’t matter how many times somebody points out the illogic of the situation, it will never make it past your God shield. Your God shield keeps anything that is illogical out of your head by rationalizing that it must be logical, but we just can’t understand why. Maybe you should lower the shields and try to see what Gaudere and others are saying. If you think you are tired of repeating yourself, imagine how she feels as she talks to a wall…

[Polycarp]

First, thanks, David. It seemed like what I had to add, which was at minimum a different perspective on the Christian viewpoint, was going by the boards while Theophilus on the one hand, and Gaudere and Esprix on the other, talked past each other. And Gaudere, you reason brilliantly, if a bit Jesuitically for an atheist. One would think that you had an S.J. in your name!

Friend of God, I may owe you an apology, and if so, you have it. You have turned anger with grace, and in that, at least, you deserve praise for following our Lord. I was quite uncharitable in my earlier posts to this thread, and should definitely mellow a bit. However, you miss the thrust of my point.

It is not for you, or me, or Esprix, or Gaudere, to decide how a fifth person should live his or her life. That is a question to be answered by that individual, guided by the Holy Spirit and God’s Word. (And, as I noted, God’s Word is not to be equated with the Bible; it is a holy record, to be sure, and I for one believe every word is there because the Holy Spirit wanted it to be. But that does not mean that it becomes the instant reference guide, with a verse tailor made for every situation: "Headache? Take two verses of Romans and call me in the morning! ;))

You have done a wonderful job of setting forth the traditional theology of salvation, complete with the substitutionary atonement. (I can just see Gaudere chuckling now.:)) However, in none of your posts do you suggest why the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is Good News now in the present to a single web designer in Chicago, or an administrative assistant from Philadelphia in a committed relationship with a physician, or a teacher of martial arts who is training in law enforcement and who has discovered to his chagrin that sometimes God’s answer to prayer is a resounding silence. Rather, you seem set on presenting strictures on how one is supposed to live a Christian life according to your precepts. And, as I have suggested, those decisions are personal. The most you or I can do is to empathize with another’s situation, and, having done so, make suggestions in Christian charity. Esprix and I went round for round on this regarding the young man referenced earlier in this thread who is a committed Christian and member of a church which teaches that acting on his same-sex desires is sinful. While Esprix apparently was stressing the need not to repress them (and cause psychological damage), I countered that he should accept them as a part of what he is, the self God gave him, and then avoid acting on them if he believes them sinful, but use them to the greater glory of God and the furtherance of His Kingdom. You, on the other hand, would presumably suggest that he needs to go through some kind of aversive therapy to “get rid of his sinful desires.” (I am putting words in your mouth, here, I know, and I would welcome your correction of them.)

In short, where is the Gospel, the Good News, in what you have posted? Why is this a matter to bring joy to their hearts? I know from your and my perspective the idea of salvation through Jesus is something to look at in those terms – but you are not “speaking to their condition.” To Esprix, you are setting forth rules that you think God demands of him and which offends the core of his being. For Gaudere, you are another of the infinite series of people who have Found the Answer and demand that she buy into it on what is to her insufficient evidence. And up to this point, you have been showing the negatives of the human condition and not the positives of the Christian one, and sounding very legalistic on what God expects and demands.

You foolish Galatian! For the good news of Christ you have substituted the laws of men (or at least what some men believe the laws of God to be). And thus is Christ crucified in vain in your teachings.

I adjure you, by the mutual love we have in our Lord, to set forth the good news of Christ, and not the foolish teachings of men regarding Him. For He is quite able to win hearts. And that is your command, after all: Nowhere in Scripture does it say, Go thou forth in Christ’s name, and smite them about the head with thy Bible.

[Esprix]

FriendofGod wrote:

Perhaps I misread what you meant by this statement, and for that I am sorry. I don’t believe in using inflammatory language just to “stir the pot”. If I had known that you thought differently than me on the subject, I would not have said what I did at all. I am not out to antagonize you. I am deeply sorry and ask for your forgiveness.

I’m not offended because of what you say about me - I’m here to defend myself, and I can certainly take it (especially since I don’t agree with a single thing you’ve said so far). What offends me is you standing there and saying “no gay person can be Christian.” I’m speaking up for my gay Christian friends who, by your definition, aren’t. I’m appalled you have made yourself the judge of who is and who isn’t Christian.

Just cuz something’s been said a lot doesn’t make it any less true, Esprix.

Hmmm, that’s true. Let’s see, how many times can I say, “FriendofGod is a nutjob?” :rolleyes:

Polycarp wrote:

Nowhere in Scripture does it say, Go thou forth in Christ’s name, and smite them about the head with thy Bible.

Dammit, Poly, I don’t have room for another .sig line!

Oh, and need I remind y’all once again that you’re WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off topic?

Esprix

[Gaudere]

I am curious … do you require God to explain EVERYthing about Himself to you before you will consider allowing Him into your life? We certainly don’t do that with human relationships.

Humans have the advantage of physically existing, and being able to be proved by the same standards of proof that we use for any other physically existing thing. First you need to prove He exists, to my satisfaction. And I would expect anyone, man or God, to not appall my logic, common sense, and compassion, if they wish my respect.

. Would you agree that eternal torture for 70,000 fibs would be fair?

No. Quite frankly, eternal torture for a finite amount of sin is not just. No matter how much sin you do, you can only do a finite amount, therefore infinite torture is not a just punishment. Even if you steal a trillion dollars, it is not just to fine you an infinite amount of money in recompense.

You say “the innocent do not suffer to spare the guilty.” This another thing I’m looking for an alternative for! HOW can the guilty be spared any other way?

You still haven’t shown why the innocent must suffer to spare the guilty! Just saying “that’s the way it is” doesn’t explain how it’s supposed to make any sense!

Can you imagine God saying, “Well, I think I’m going to redefine sin to suit my tastes. Lets see … lets say that hatred and murder AREN’T sins!” Well as soon as He does this, He ceases to be a good God.

You might be surprised to know what there are some Christians (yes, fundamantalists too; in fact, primarily fundamentalists, in my experiece) who believe that the only reason rape and murder are bad is that God said they were. You are apparently positing that Good and Evil are independent of God’s desires, whch leads me to ask: what determines what is good and evil, if not God?

In this scenario you painted, love of God is not only not the goal, it’s not even required!

I thought the goal of God was unforced love. “Love me or burn” is not unforced.

1. We are all guilty of sin and deserve to die for it.

But you see…it is not logical to sentence someone to eternal suffering for finite sin. Therefore your initial premise is faulty, and nothing extrapolated from it could be necessarily true.

God loves us and doesnt want to punish us, but He’s just and so He has to punish us.

But this isn’t really one of your initial premises; if it was axiomatic that God must punish us, He would have to punish us always, but He obviously doesn’t–even you admit he can punish Himself instead, odd though that is. So your second premise is false as well. I won’t work with flawed premises that you yourself do not demand God hold Himself to.

One thread he kept seeing over and over was that EVERY religion had something at least nice to say about Jesus.

The people of the Book all say nice things about Moses, too, but that doesn’t make Moses God, or make the Jews necessarily correct.
“I don’t know” is not a dirty word; in fact it’s one of the noblest phrases I know of. “I don’t know and I have no desire to know” is terribly disappointing though. I think, in all honesty, that you would be well served to explore some other people’s answers to the questions I raise. I would also advise you to pick up a book on logic, since you seem to think that saying something makes it so, which isn’t how it works unless you’re simply positing axioms. And I suggest that you think about how your statements will be read by others; how would you react to someone telling you that you were not a Christian? Do you think this is the best way to reach people? Do you think that you have the right to say that someone who believes in Jesus the Christ is not a Christian?

[Gaudere]

Let’s see, how many times can I say, “FriendofGod is a nutjob?”

[Moderator Hat ON]

It better be just this once. You know, you kind of knock yourself off the moral high ground when you start name-calling.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[avalongod]

Guadere:

I am curious what you would accept as "proof" I sometimes wonder (though am not sure) that the perfection and balance of the natural world itself is not proof. I don't think that science will ever be able either to prove or disprove the answer to "Is their a God." I suspect that when most people say "Prove it to me..." and forgive me, I might be wrong...what they mean is "Make God come down from the stars, juggle a couple of moons for me, cure all human illnesses and share a banana frappe with me." Perhaps you were hoping the journal nature might come out with their special issue: "God Exists! p<.05" If you can come up with a way for me, as a scientist, to falisifyably answer this question let me know, I would be happy to give you co-author credit.

quote:

~~~You still haven't shown why the innocent must suffer to spare the guilty!

Although I do not believe in Christianity, I believe this concept has to do with altruism. From the perspective of the Greek pantheon, the Greek gods were always impressed with this sort of thing. I think it might have to do with Jesus being SO innocent that he was able to take the sins of everyone else onto himself and not suffer, thus letting everyone else get a "Get out of Hell free" card.

quote:

~~~what determines what is good and evil, if not God?

I wonder though, on a purely epistemological level if such things do not exist seperate from our (and perhaps Gods) subjective experiences. Sure there is plenty of gray area, but let us say I believe it is just peachy to murder, and you believe it is wrong. Does this mean that each of our phenomenological viewpoints are equally valid, or does one inherently have more "truth" than the other?

quote:

~~~Do you think that you have the right to say that someone who believes in Jesus the Christ is not a Christian?

You are valid in criticising FOG on this point. However I would like to suggest that such viewpoints are not unique to Christians. In fact I was kinda getting the impression that you are calling FOG illogical because he does not agree with YOUR logic. (Now I am going to get phenomenological). From his viewpoint he is both logical and Christian...from your viewpoint you are both logical and "soft-atheist." From his definition of Christianity others may not be Christians...although they may be Christians by their own definition. I see no fundamental contradiction here, though I am not saying it is "right."

[Gaudere]

I am curious what you would accept as “proof” I sometimes wonder (though am not sure) that the perfection and balance of the natural world itself is not proof.

I don’t know that I consider the natural world perfect; it simply is. This does not preclude the existence of a God; there may certainly be a Perfectly Good reason for intestinal worms. I, personally, find positing a God to be unnecessary.

If you can come up with a way for me, as a scientist, to falisifyably answer this question let me know, I would be happy to give you co-author credit.

What, prove that God doesn’t exist? Sure, just as soon as I can prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. There are ways that you could amass a mountain of evidence that God exists, but God apparently does not want to play along. That’s fine. ::shrug:: Currently I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that God is a likely hypothesis. Most theists have said that they have had a feeling of God’s presence, but feelings have not shown themselves to me to be an adequate judge of reality. On the other hand, since I have never felt any God-feelings, perhaps they are quantitatively different enough that it is reasonable to accept them as proof. If I ever become a theist I’ll let you know.

I think it might have to do with Jesus being SO innocent that he was able to take the sins of everyone else onto himself and not suffer, thus letting everyone else get a “Get out of Hell free” card.

This doesn’t seem to jive with most Christian theology; there is usually a great deal of emphasis of how much Jesus suffered.

Does this mean that each of our phenomenological viewpoints are equally valid, or does one inherently have more “truth” than the other?

Well, as a sentient being, I tend to think that the ultimate “good” is what promotes the health and happiness of all sentient beings. I tend to think that other sentient beings should feel the same; someone who kills a man to protect the life of a carrot would have his priorities messed up, IMHO. Carrots might have a different opinion on this. But if we get into a big “what is Good and Evil” discussion, Esprix will complain some more about us being off-topic.

In fact I was kinda getting the impression that you are calling FOG illogical because he does not agree with YOUR logic.

He has yet to provide a logical reason–and he admits it–for some of my questions, stating only that such a thing is so. If he wants to posit it as an axiom, fine, but he can’t say that he has given a logical reason for it.

From his definition of Christianity others may not be Christians…although they may be Christians by their own definition. I see no fundamental contradiction here, though I am not saying it is “right.”

Actually, I was thinking more that he should leave such definitions up to his God, and also that it was not the best way to endear people to his cause.

[Esprix]

Gaudere wrote:

It better be just this once. You know, you kind of knock yourself off the moral high ground when you start name-calling.

But he is… oh, never mind.

{SIGH}

Apologies all 'round. You’re right, as usual.

Esprix

[Polycarp]

::: watches as people cringe from my Waylon imitation :::

Okay, after everybody pointed out that we’re “Waaaay off the track,” I did the unthinkable: I went back and looked at the OP.

Let’s say a man always felt awkward around women. {snip} Well one day this man met another wonderful man. Things started as a friendship, but it soon grew to love. The love was as intense if not more so then husband/wife love. The men would die for each other, will do anything for each other. It’s as pure a love as two mortal could accomplish. Would their love be considered a sin?

It ain’t, even by Fundaloonies. Examples: David and Jonathan; Paul and Timothy; and, paramountly, Jesus and John.

If so, why does God discriminate against love?

N/A. See above.

If God discriminates against certain love would that imply he is not always just? If God is not always just, would that imply that he makes mistakes? If He makes mistakes, would that imply that’s He’s no real God at all?

Nice sequence of implications. As noted, N/A. God apparently does frown on certain actions that their proprietors would describe as “expressions of love.” Example that I think we can all agree on: a member of NAMBLA “showing his love” for an eight-year-old.

Isn’t God and Christ about Love, first and foremost? So why is some love ok, and some is not? If it’s true love, how could it come from anywhere but God?

IMHO, that’s right on target. Most theologians would agree with item one. Remember that in general they are talking about agape rather than eros. Dredge around in any code and you will find prohibitions of all kinds, some enforced and some not. “Some [expressions of] love” – question: If a married couple consent to having anal sex, is that a sin? Under whose code? Besides themselves and god, whose business is it anyway?

And distinguish between love sensu stricto and limerence. In the first sense, it is an ongoing commitment between two people to hold each other as precious as they do themselves, if not more so … in Heinlein’s wise words, “where the happiness of the beloved is essential to the happiness of the lover.” “Limerence” is the useful technical term for “falling in love” – the projection of one’s feelings of need for another onto one specific other person. It’s a valuable first step in establishing a love relationship – but it is not itself “love” in the strict sense. (If I love you, you cannot reject me – literally – if you act to do so, you are spurning my demonstration of love, but not turning off the inner feeling of love for you. Contrast this with the ending of a limerence relationship.)

On a related note…is there any specific scripture verses from the NT that explicitly states that homosexuality is anymore of a sin then other heterosexual sins? (ie adultry, fornication)

Nope. Nor could there be. As Friend of God notes, accurately, there is no degree of sin – God is opposed to all of them. (Brief excursus: well, technically there are two: the “sin against the Holy Spirit” and all the others, distinguished by whether they can be forgiven. Since the first is, IMHO, the active rejection of God known as Himself perpetually continued, it’s only fair to suggest that it be unforgivable – it would be the height of injustice for God to “forgive” this and insist on bringing the forgiven into heaven – the divine equivalent of the great aunt who gives you a present and insists that you make your household revolve around the present to show your appreciation for it. That is no gift; it is a tool to manipulate you disguised as one. And God’s “forgiveness” of that sort of rejection would be his denial of the rejector’s free will.) Just as an off point, and I think probably Esprix and others have addressed this: Jesus never said one (recorded) word about homosexuality during his earthly ministry. Paul makes reference to it twice: once as a punishment for party animals with jaded appetites in Roman 1, and once in condemning a list of people including hypocrites, the ungodly, and arsenokaites as those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. What an arsenokaitis might be is subject to dispute among N.T. Greek scholars (many believe it to mean “effeminate”), but every pulpit pounder is convinced that the traditional translation of “homosexual” is accurate. (FoG: have I missed any NT reference? I don’t have a Bible handy where I’m posting.)

Can we proceed from there?

[Liberal]

Poly!

[hijack]

Greetings, old friend! The “life” of the cells is so fleeting. How wonderful to see your name in a thread again. See ya 'round, I hope.

[/hijack]

[tracer]

Libertarian wrote:

Greetings, old friend! The “life” of the cells is so fleeting.

Yeah, especially with their telomeres getting shorter with each mitosis.

[Polycarp]

:::throws Lewis Thomas books at Tracer:::

[avalongod]

Guadere:

quote:

Depends on what you mean by perfect. If you mean, makes it comfy for humans, not always. But I was meaning just how the delicate balance of everything in nature worked out so well. The odds of this happening, that the physical laws should be what they are, that a series of random occurances make the Earth as perfect as it is for life, that life should even happen, that it should evolve into more complex forms and become self-aware. Many folks say "Well it happened, so the odds are unimportant as well bucked them" but I find positing a world without some form of god requires more assumptions than one which has one. To me a guiding force of some sort seems logical, given the perfect balance to which things worked out.

quote:

~~~There are ways that you could amass a mountain of evidence that God exists, but God apparently does not want to play along.

Again such as what? What would you like him/her/it to do to prove it to you? Again it seems like you want God to put his shining face on a billboard for you. You also seem to buy into the "What God wants, god gets" argument. IT could be that God, in forming the physical laws, can not violate them himself. As such the very things which ought to be evidence for the existance of a god other people cite as evidence God does not exist. Again, you did not answer my question...what would be the nature of acceptable proof for you? Does it need to be mathematically demonstrated and published in Nature or Science, and would you even believe it then, if it were?

[Gaudere]

The odds of this happening, that the physical laws should be what they are, that a series of random occurances make the Earth as perfect as it is for life, that life should even happen, that it should evolve into more complex forms and become self-aware.

Do I have to go through the example where you shuffle a deck of cards, lay them out and explain that the odds against that particular happening are 1 out of [10 times the total atoms in the universe or somesuch]? That my life would occur in exactly this particlar manner so I am writing a response at 3:17PM wearing blue jeans and eating fried chicken has incredible odds against it, yet it happened. I don’t really see the need for a divine hand, although it’s really no skin off my nose if you do. Even unlikely things happen; otherwise the lottery would be even more of a rip-off. Also, anyone who’s tried to guess at the odds for life devoloping has pretty much seemed to me to be pulling the numbers out of their ass; nor is this the only time or place of manifestation of life that may be possible.

Pour enough energy into a system, and it will spontaneously organize even into extremely complex forms, due to the simple physical laws involved. But David’s more up on this than I.

Again such as what? What would you like him/her/it to do to prove it to you? Again it seems like you want God to put his shining face on a billboard for you.

Well, there’s the proof you sneer at: physical manifestation, miracles, all the dead rising from graves, a big booming voice that calls the next year’s lottery numbers for everywhere in the world, etc. That would work. As to less solid proof, I hold God to the same standards that I do any other metaphysical/non-corporeal thing. I don’t believe in Boogiemen (most times) even if I’ve had very strong feelings that they exist, so a “feeling” of God has to be qualitatively different. If random feelings of depression are not the work of the Devil, random feelings of happiness are not the work of God. I would also have to rule out alternate explanations; hallucinations, hypnagogic visions, etc. Most theists seem to have had epiphanies where they say God actually communicated with them; I’ve never experienced anything like this, although I did ask nicely. But possibly personal relevation/experience would work, as long as it hold up to the standards I demand regarding the existence of any other metaphysical thing. Does that answer your question?

You also seem to buy into the “What God wants, god gets” argument. IT could be that God, in forming the physical laws, can not violate them himself.

How do you reconcile this with miracles, where God does violate the physical laws? Or are you a Deist?

? Does it need to be mathematically demonstrated and published in Nature or Science, and would you even believe it then, if it were?

You know, I get a little tired of the “all atheists are such unreasonable close-minded skeptics that if God came down to earth in a fiery chariot and resurrected all the dead they still wouldn’t believe” bit. I daresay you get tired of atheists who imply that everyone who believes in God is a credulous idiot as well. And undoubtably some atheists are unreasonable close-minded skeptics, and some theists are credulous idiots, but it ill behooves intelligent people to speak in sweeping sterotypes.

[avalongod]

Hello Guadere, my replies:

quote:

Again, by my previous post, this was the sort of "doesn't matter what the odds it happened" argument that IMHO, I do not find particularly convincing. I would think that if one of these pink unicorns you fancy came to your house in a cab, knocked on the door and sang "The Flower Duet" (both parts) for you, you would say, "Gee, what are the odds against that, well doesn't matter it happened, so it is not unusual" I am not trying to be critical, however, hindsight is always 20/20. I should mention if you note in the book RARE EARTH (or pretty much any book discussion this topic...I believe at least) you will note that the odds are QUITE a bit more unlikely than pulling out the ace of hearts.

quote:

~~~Pour enough energy into a system, and it will spontaneously organize even into extremely complex forms, due to the simple physical laws involved.

the physical laws, again IMHO are more descriptive than causal...obviously energy and organization work together...but this statement neither confirms nor disconfirms any sort of "god" A reasonable god could be acting through physical law (my personal philosophy finds this likely)

quote:

~~~Does that answer your question?

Sorta, but that's ok, I think it is a difficult question for anyone to answer. Again it sounds like you want God to come down personally to you, (perhaps riding on that pink unicorn) and say "Dammit worship me." THAT is not a scientific proof of course. It seems to me you say you will not accept any metaphysical proof of god...and yet that is exactly what you ask for...if god DID actually come down and visit you, I wonder if you might even dismiss that as a hallucination (which of course it just might be!)

quote:

~~~How do you reconcile this with miracles, where God does violate the physical laws?

I do not believe in miracles. As I believe God would have created the physical laws, it is illogical to assume he/she/it would subsequently violate them.

quote:

~~~Or are you a Deist?

Give the lady a cupie doll!
:D

quote:

~~~And undoubtably some atheists are unreasonable close-minded skeptics, and some theists are credulous idiots, but it ill behooves intelligent people to speak in sweeping sterotypes.

You are correct of course, and if I have stated anything which offended you or made you feel attacked, I hope you will please accept my humblest appologies.

[Gaudere]

In all seriousness, what would you consider adequate proof of a non-physical being? It seems like you posit God based on the unlikelyhood of this world happening without His aid. (::Pensively considering likelyhood of all-powerful conscious and sentient being always existing, when the development of intelligence at all apparently is so unlikely as to require a God’s intervention: Anyhow, what would you consider adequate proof of any metaphysical being(s)? Say, imperceptable fairies. A feeling? An unusual feeling? A physical demonstration/manifestation by the imperceptable fairies? A book that says these spirits exist? People who honestly believe they exist? Anecdotal evidence that people have interacted with them? The fact that you can posit them to explain something you can’t figure out yet?

[avalongod]

Guadere, you raise a very interesting question.

Let me start by evaluating positivist theories of the universe (I am generalizing positivist to include theories which negate the existance of a “God”) and the assumptions of such theories that I am aware (and perhaps I am wrong in the assumptions):

1.) That our observations of the physical world are accurate
2.) That our observations of the physical world are comprehensive
3.) That that which can not be observed within the physical world does not exist.
4.) that physical observations are necessary and sufficient to explain the origins of…well, everything.

Having observed science firsthand, I can tell you #1 and #2 are false…well, let’s say not false but rather largely incomplete…a fraction of our observations (and inferences based thereon) are probably true, but trouble is we don’t know which are and which are not.

There is no ontological reason to assume #3 is true…in fact if we were to limit ourselves to this axiom, science itself would never have progressed to include out present understandings of energy, much of which was unobservable 100 years or so ago.

#4 is, of course, a matter of opinion, though my understanding of the scientific literature is that current science does not explain the universe very well at all. This is not an attempt to put science down…obviously if we had all the answers science would be little fun. But ontologically speaking, to me it seems as if an “unguided” (if you will) universe requires a hell of a lot of assumptions, and there is very little ontological reason for suggesting not only how any of this has come to be, but why it ever should have bothered to come to be at all.

From this I had to posit the question: Can a “guided” universe make sense in a scientific framework…meaning can a God be reconciled with science. This I struggled with for years before I came to understand science as not disproving “God” (as many people equate God with religion, and note that science quite nicely disproves most organized religions, this may be a stumbling block for a lot of folk) but rather as being almost synonymous with God…when I think of it, the universe is designed pretty much how I would design it if I were god (that’s a job I would like). So from a purely philosophical perspective it makes some degree of sense.

Back to the fairies and unicorns. You will probably be able to note that these examples are (at the present time) not synonymous with scientific observation…we would expect to see unicorn hoofprints for instance…but in the concept of “God” we may indeed have those “hoofprints” in the evidence of “perfect” physical laws, and simply be misinterpreting them. Also unicorns and fairies add nothing ontologically to a theoretical understanding of the universe, as far as I am aware. Now it may very well be that we may find unicorn bones anyway one day (Hell this sorta thing happened with the discovery of the dinosaurs) but that has not happened. Other things (perhaps less facetious examples such as Reincarnation, NDEs, UFOs) I do not personally think exist, yet I would concede I might very well be wrong, and would be open to forthcoming empirical evidence.

So, if you could incorporate fairies and unicorns into a theoretical framework that had internal consistency at least, and was not contrary to empirical evidence, I might at least listen.

Also, as science advances, it might be that we develop some empirical means to detect “God” Who knows what the future might bring.

[Gaudere]

Hm, I guess I have trouble with trying to explain the complexity of the world by positing a God who seems even more complex, and has always existed. “Why should the universe exist? How does it have the laws it does?” can be answered by “God”, but then I ask, “Why should God exist? How does S/He have the attributes we think S/He does?”, and so on, and so on. The universe, I think, at least has the advantage over God in being physically present. I do not necessarily think that science can currently detect everything, but it does not seem reasonable to me to guess at entities without objective proof. Things may exist that cannot be observed by science, but I simply lack belief in them until further evidence comes to light. Science in no way disproves God; in fact, I’d hardly say it disproves most religions (as you do), unless you are speaking of those who attempt to use their Holy Books as science texts.

Also, as science advances, it might be that we develop some empirical means to detect “God” Who knows what the future might bring.

That would throw quite a few religions into a tizzy; they’re pretty big on the “God wants you to believe through faith, not proof!” Heh heh. Might be amusing. What do you think of more traditional religions? I take it you think they’re just as misguided as atheists.

[avalongod]

Hello again Guadere…have you noticed that our discussions always revert back to the ontological nature of god no matter what the OP is?

quote

Again, I believe that it is more complex WITHOUT one, but this is, of course a matter of opinion.

quote:

~~~How does S/He have the attributes we think S/He does

My opinion would be a solid no.

quote:

~~~The universe, I think, at least has the advantage over God in being physically present.

I ain't questioning the existence of the universe. :D

quote:

~~~but it does not seem reasonable to me to guess at entities without objective proof.

I know what you mean, but keep in mind though that this is exactly how science get's its start...by forming hypothesis, then searching out evidence to support/disconfirm them.

quote:

~~~I'd hardly say it disproves most religions (as you do), unless you are speaking of those who attempt to use their Holy Books as science texts.

I was and I should have been more specific.

quote

~~~What do you think of more traditional religions? I take it you think they're just as misguided as atheists.

Ack! Misguided is a tough word...I can only speak to my opinion, and I do believe that both the "traditional" religious folks and...shall we say "radical" atheists indeed misinterpret the nature of faith and science by viewing them as opposing.

As a side note, I do enjoy these ontological debates (I know some folk seem to get irritated when others do not bow to their opinions). The intelligent posters such as yourself on this board provide useful basises upon which to evaluate one's philosophy. Any philosophy worth having must be able to survive critical thought.