Caposkia and TGBaker discussion
Does God exist? IS Christianity valid? Is the New Testament inerrant and a proof of God? There are several ways to begin this discussion. Having been a Christian before "falling from grace"1.* I would suggest that the evangelical approach would be to share the good news or try to give an explanation that would cause me to consider acceptance of Christ as my savior.
1.*) Galatians 5:4 (NASB) You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. I know depending on your denominational background that even the meaning of this text will be debated.
Again I will share that the loss of my faith came from actual scholarly studies of the scripture. I see philosophically no way one would arrive at a theism through a natural theology without a presupposition of a god and it being derived from holy scripture. To me Christians defend their believe in their faith based upon cultural bonds with their context. It is hard for them to develop a temporary skeptical approach to their faith claims that they may see if those claims hold up from an objective prospective. Most Christian presentation seems apologetic with secondary arguments that support the primary unproven premises. Hey but that is just me.
It sounds to me that your take on the existence of God is that due to the flaws in life, a limitless well being as painted to be God as Christians know him could not possibly exist. correct me if i'm wrong.
There are many directions to go with this, one could be the Christian perspective: choice (c) causes results (r) despite the intentions of God (x) Therefore X exists regardless of R due to C.
Einstine's perspective: X exists but is too big to care about our petty C's and R's. (impersonal in other words)
Religious perspective: X is but sacrifice (s) is required for a good result (p). no S = -R
and there are many more. The point is, flaws can exist in a world with a metaphysical creator. The question then comes is why and how do we justify why?
I understand the apology of c--> r but x
The response is that it does not have to be that way. God is capable of a perfection of heaven and of a future Kingdom of perfection according to the claims. He could therefore allowed the well-being and joy of those states rather than the suffering of the world. But to say that it is by free agency the agency still comes from its creator. Secondly he could protect and correct the suffering of at least the innocent if not all. For me these types of thoughts come from a mythological view of a fall from a Paradise that never was. Evolution explains the real state of the world better. Einstein's view was not of a personal god and he really was referring to the ultimate source of nature as god much like the force in Star Wars I think reading his biographies. I have not problems with using the term, god, like Hawkings does metaphorically of the absolute. There is the difference though one must concede between a force and a Person.
The religious result seems to be primitive and insulting especially if you have had seen all of the abused and molested babies I have. Why is sacrifice required because of an imperfectly created world. I agree that flaws can exist with a metaphysical creator. My conclusion though is as many contemporaries that a creator can not have all of the attributes historically contributed with these flaws. And it leaves us in a situation of deciding what they are. We paint our own god in that process. If god is all powerful and loving then stop children from starving to death on the dry breasts of their mothers. If he is not all powerful but all loving then he should manifest that compassion such as a Buddha perhaps. This calls again in question the Christian presentation of god. If he is not an all good god then it explains a lot of the terrible things he did and had done in the OT. The process theology of several theologians present a god that interacts with his creation grows learns and changes.
The above have been several approaches to the "WHY and how to justify why? The theodicy presentation defeats or at least suspends the validity of the premise of the Ontological Argument for God. This all said and done seems to leave us with calling simply where ever the universe came from if we like as God. A gap in the study of consciousness and what it is reamins as is witnessed by such works as Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, David Chalmers two major books on consciousness, the work of Krick (DNA) and Kristoff Koch in the Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC).Is the "force"conscious or not? It seems more plausible to simply see the world as a process of expansion and evolution with as Laplace said of god...no need for that hypothesis.