Quote mattnapa:O.K -Even the abstract follow rationlity. At least Zeus and the like "fill the role" of gods. Santa and other purely imiginary role are pressumed to be non existent. God and the like are to a coorespondence in a reality.
Well, one can argue that Santa is capable of watching over all of us, knows our sins, and doles out reward and punishment just like a God. Amusement aside, though, "presumed to be non existent" is an interesting phrase. Other than claiming existence by definition or fiat, why should we presume God to exist and not Santa. Which also leads to the question of why we should presume any particular God to exist. Why is Osiris out and Jehova in?
Quote mattnapa:I think the word should be considered on a couplelevels. One as a being. Another as universal consciousness. I suppose multi level god beings might be in there too.
So we have replaced one ambiguous word with a couple more. "As a being" is vague. What properties and attributes does this being have? Is it chilling on a golden throne somewhere directing the angels? Consciousness fares no better. What is consciousness? And what does it mean for consciousness to be universal? This is not a specious question. While we can all sort of articulate that consciousness is a form of awareness, I don't know what you think it means for the universe to be "aware".
I do not claim necessarily that there is evidence of God, I just protest your certainity that there is not one.
Why is your certainty there is one any better? Anyway, I've stated a number of times now that the issue is unresolvable. I do not and can not know for certain if there is a God, and neither can anyone else. As such you can just as well choose no god as god for all the bearing it has on our lives. My opinion is that on the whole religion has been a negative force in human history. If every Sunday instead of church people went out and actually got active and worked to change the world, we would be better off.
My position is that "intelligent design" is simply more intuititvely rational than we are here from an accident.
Intelligent design usually has a very specific meaning. Are you arguing against evolution as well? Anyway, even if I grant a creator is more "intuitively rational", that's not evidence for the existence of such a being. There are many true things in the universe that are absolutely not intuitive.
"The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is--Absurd" -Richard Feynman
Quote mattnapa:But it can change our perception of what it is to be human. There is no doubt that 'believing" you are connected to the world and others in a continuous manner is comforting for most. I think for many of us the metaphysical construct seems cod and irrevocable
Yes, but what does fact have to do with our feelings? Just because something is comforting to some people doesn't make it true. And if you take comfort in being connected to the world, you certainly don't need religion for that. All living things share a common ancestor. We are all of us made of the same stuff. We share many of the same genes. There is a profound connection between us and the world, and one that is more profound and interesting that vague notions of consciousness.
Special can mean different things. i doubt that other creatures have the experience of free-will, and in some ways that increases our responsibility in relation to them.
That would be one example of what I mean about humans thinking we're substantially different from other animals. If my cat has the option of two mice, isn't it fair to think she is making a choice between them? Isn't that free will? Dolphins have a cerebral cortex that is something like 40% larger than humans. It seems reasonable to suppose they have something akin to what we call consciousness and intelligence.
Quote mattnapa:There is plenty of religous belief that runs contrary to this assertion. Amazing how much traction the "dominion" quote gets. this is not to say that there is not truth to the assertion however, but it is a function of belief systems in religion and not a function of the idea of a god.
Granted, but I wasn't referring specifically to simply a notion of some sort of God. DRC brought up that there was a "message of stewardship" in religion, and I was arguing that the Biblical tradition has long had a strong faction which believes man was given dominion over the earth. This idea is still with us, many people believe it, and the idea of property and property rights would be very different without it.