If that is where the evidence leads should we shy away from conclusions simply because they conflict with what we want?
No, we should only follow the evidence. I am sure it is what god would want us to do.
Honestly, when I contemplate the mystery of existence I find my thoughts bound and sullied by the relatively primitive ideas of the ancients. How can we be witness to the awesome majesty of the cosmos and assign it’s creation to some creature with childish emotions. It seems to me that god would be concerned with things like the speed of light and the properties of dna and other things of which I have no awareness.
The idea of a personal god is beyond the pale of reason and only serves to illuminate our desire for there to be such a thing.
As an aside the psychologist in me does wonder about the need for certainty biblical literalists seem to have about the nature of their god.
It has always astounded me how child-like our gods are. Why should a Universal deity insist on being worshipped? Why should it be vengeful or jealous? Why would it have any ego at all? Does the ego not arise from comparing oneself to one’s peers?
If I am imagining a God, and that God doesnt stack up to the ways that I was taught that such a God should be, what am I to make of it?
The creation or imagining of god is our projection of utopia. The embodiment of hope and desire for perfection. You should disregard the projections of others and go with your gut.
If there is a god and he made some laws then those laws can not be broken. They are (edit; would be) the laws of nature. The gods of old are the first hazy attempt to understand those laws. Science today is the heartfelt and honest pursuit of understanding those laws.
Does it make any sense, at all, that an eternal creator would require a book to manifest itself in the world?
Edited by Dogmafood, : correct teh historical record.
What about all of the suffering that is caused by the conditions of the Universe that do not involve us or our freewill. I would not lay blame at god’s foot for the malfeasance of man but what of the sick child or the victims of nature?
Indeed, are we not all victims of nature with her limited resources, fierce competition and piss poor hygiene? Are these not the roots of ‘evil’ in man?
Like the good in man that counters his evil, nature too consists of a balance: the good in nature that provides for us and gives us much joy, is tempered and balanced by the contamination caused by mans evil.
Did you mean that the good in nature is balanced by the evil in nature? How has man’s evil contaminated nature? How is man to blame for childhood cancer or malaria or polio or MS or trisomy 21 or earthquakes that kill thousands and cause untold suffering? Man is a product of nature. Saying that man has contaminated nature is like saying that water has got itself all wet. Nonsense.
Combined, the stage is set for our being exposed to a sense of heaven and a sense of hell. The question is set: which will we chose.
Take the myth of Cain and Able. Had god not required sacrifices and offerings there would have been no problem. It was god’s pride that led to the fall, Cain was just following his ‘god given’ instinct and pride. Had god’s favour fallen equally upon them there would have been no problem.
To your point about having arrived at the truth, I do not think that truth is a static thing. Even though, for the longest time, I ‘knew’ that only 1 is exactly equal to 1, my mind is open to the realization that 0.999...9 is also exactly equal to 1.
If you let your imagination run free, could you not imagine a god with more godly qualities than the god of the bible?