Would you like me to research the books out there by prominent scientists who were atheists and became religious based upon their searches to disprove Him?
No, that's okay; I'm pretty sure I've seen them.
Besides, I think we both believe that what we're discussing is a personal journey, so even if one relies on what are supposedly "more credible" sources, I still must decide the final perspective myself.
Emotions can be far more important proof. Not always, and no, I would not convict someone of murder based upon a hunch. But, sometimes they're more accurate than what we perceive as fact.
That would be one's intuition, which can be valuable, but generally speaking, personal feelings are not a good tool to use to find objective truth.
You can't conceive that God could be a little bit different for each person? I can. Omniscience starts with "omni" for a reason.
I can because I would hope God would be so flexible, but many strict theists - 2A, as our regular example - can not; they believe there is one God with one perspective that we must conform to... or we fail.
You're making my point about God being kind, benevolant, maleable within tight parameters..... different for everyone.
Do you think that they'd be happy if you were a robber-baron? A serial rapist? I suspect you live pretty close to their values, and they're very accepting. Sounds a lot like my version of what God is.
Of course they wouldn't be happy if I chose those lifestyles... but I
wouldn't choose those lifestyles. Again, we seem to be using two different perspectives on God. When I made my statement, I was thinking of this quote: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
(Matthew 7:13-14.)
That backs the indication that God is not exactly flexible. My family has not, by comparison, insisted that I follow certain beliefs, follow a certain career path, and so on; they are happy that I am happy and a good person. If your God views his people similarly then great, but, as I said above, many people do not bear the same interpretation, and that's what I was addressing originally.
If you felt I put words in your mouth, I'm sorry. I actually just meant that you said science would eventually figure it all out. To me, that was faith in science.
No, I didn't feel like you were speaking for me - you do that frequently enough for JPC
- but I do think you misunderstood me.
I can see how one's scientific foundation can be perceived as "faith"... but that is not equivalent to a religious faith, at least not for me. (Continued...)
But, in my opinion, you are staking your after-life on science. By accepting ONLY science as an option, you summarily reject other options.
You really don't know what my spiritual beliefs are; all I have discussed here is the Christian God and science. Not once have I said that I use ONLY science to get through life. Remember what I said earlier: I
do not believe science should replace religion, as they pertain to completely separate, if overlapping, realms. I do not believe they need to be mutually exclusive. Do you?
What's "real" and "true" hasn't changed. What people choose to perceive and teach as real and true may have, but the truth hasn't changed.
I know that, hence why I put those terms in quotes.
But, imagine how boring a life that would be for a human - no struggle, no strife, no setbacks to overcome......
However, that is how things were
supposed to be, how they were established in the beginning, was it not? We were supposed to be unknowing, unaware, painless, all-loving, and non-resistant.
Once humans used the brain and curiosity they were given they were condemned. Not much "choice" there, think I.
