Okay, so basic answers from me, but lots of questions and answers can get lengthy, as they should if we were to devote a thread to each question.Maybe, maybe not. :shrug:
My point is that those with faith as well as those without, should stop thinking of God in the typical linear or anthropomorphic manner.
Christianity has God as an anthropomorphic figure "man was created in God's image", and anthropomorphic in character and emotion. I'm good with a different concept of God akin to some cosmic identity in the vein of deism vice theism; that said, I don't feel it necessary to entertain concepts like this as it does nothing for me personally, but that's just me.
If the Bible was touted as a science book you'd have a point, but it's not so you don't.
The Bible purports itself to be the one true word of the creator of the universe, therefore representing true reality. Science describes reality thru hypothesis, then validates it's theories via the scientific method. Both describe 'reality'. The difference is, science moves forward. Dogma cannot.
I can only accept that if and when science gives us an explanation for the purpose of existence. Until then, it sucks at the why part.
Einstein aside, my point was that scientific theories have been debunked. Are you denying that's the case?
It's the beauty of science. Existing theories will continue to be challenged and superseded by better ones. Without science, you would not have the computer you're typing on or the cellphone you use, or the television you watch. Try debunking the ALL the scientific 'theory' these devices are based on and et me know when you finish...
According to science, one burst of energy and billions of random chances created a grand stage for such a small life form. Is that so different than saying God created a grand stage for such a small life form? Regardless of your answer, I have no problem with that. Do you? Man, that God Creator of the Universe Singular Point of Energy Thing Whatever the Hell It Is is fascinating, no?
Yes, fascinating, just don't know if any entity is behind it and OK with not knowing.
I will take this opportunity to tell you that your previous synopsis of history had quite a few holes and showed your lack of theological understanding. With that in mind, scientific ignorance or spiritual ignorance doesn't much matter, they're two sides to the same coin.
You can't be serious Rad1? Can you not recognize when something is done tongue in cheek and for fun? Theologically, you may have me, it's been awhile since I did regular study. But thank God (pardon the reference) for the internet when I feel like boning up.
Some things I'd like for you to answer for me, Proxima, because I'm truly curious as to your answers, and by all means take some time to think about them if you have to. Since pre-history mankind has had faith in something that it calls "god", i.e. something other than mankind itself and an unseen world if you will. What makes you think that suddenly in the last couple centuries mankind knows better and is so much more enlightened than men in the previous, say, 1.8 million years? And, if the majority of mankind has faith of some sort, then does that not make existence of faith itself a concrete reality? And, what do you think of the scientists who also have faith? Those very same scientists who give you those theories you rely so heavily on for your world view?
Lots of questions/ I think it is a fallacy to validate anything based on a preponderance of human belief; of course this goes for science too. But it's especially true for the metaphysical or the supernatural or the spiritual. Btw, our brains have hard wiring left over from our ancient ancestors that lend itself to 'belief' because the brain had to come up with something to explain natural phenomena of human surroundings and ground the ancient human in something he/she could 'believe' in. Lacking modern day knowledge, isolated tribal peoples still use myth and superstition to explain their environment and their lives.