AgnosticWeb.com
Log in
Register
Search:
Back to the entry by David Turell
Post reply
Reply to the message by
David Turell
Name:
E-mail:
(optional, won't be displayed directly)
Leave this field empty:
Homepage:
(optional)
Leave this field empty:
Location:
(optional)
Remember me (cookie)
Category:
Introduction
The atheist delusion
Agnosticism
Evolution
The limitations of science
Origins
The nature of a 'Creator'
Where is it now?
Endings
Identity
Animals
Humans
Religion
Art
Politics
What should be taught in schools?
A mad world
General
Subject:
Formatting help
skip to input
format text bold
[b]bold text[/b]
format text italic
[i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink
[link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color
[color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size
[size=small]small text[/size]
[size=large]large text[/size]
insert list
[list][*]list item[/list]
insert image
[img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(
Message:
> > > dhw:If I have understood panentheism correctly, it = belief in a greater power without the attribution to it of any personal qualities. David:Panentheism allows for a personal loving God. Panentheism is simply the belief that God exists within and without the universe. dhw: I find the evidence of intelligent design too convincing to allow for faith in chance (which I equate with atheism). But as I've tried to explain in my postings, I find the evidence of indifference/impersonality too convincing to allow for faith that a designer is actually out there, let alone maintaining a loving interest in me and my fellow creatures. David: It is either design or chance, not both. No alternative, so you must choose one or the other. And if you choose design, there has to be something out there to create the design. dhw: I can't pray to a force whose nature is so indeterminate. I use the word "can't", not "won't". A leap of faith would not be confined to acceptance of design (which I think is the limit of reason's reach) but would require a personal trust. You [i]"have faith in Him"[/i] and [i]"can relate to Him in prayer"[/i], and yet you are [i]"not sure how 'personal' God is". [/i]You have probably hit on the ideal balance between reason and hope, and I find it very appealing. But the suffering of the world is real, and it provides a constant barrage of evidence which suggests that whether designed or not, the universe doesn't care. And so I'm faced with the following possibilities: 1) a loving God; 2) a malevolent God; 3) an indifferent God; 4) a God with a dichotomized, human-type nature; 5) no God at all. David: You are trying too hard to anthropomorphize whatever the intelligent force really is. Your 1) and 3) are most likely. 2) is really very evil; 4) is the usual making a human-like 'person' out of God, as many religions seem to do. Adler calls it 'a person like no other person'.5) can't be true if the conclusion is design. - > dhw: From a purely personal point of view, of course No 1 is ideal, No 2 is the worst possible scenario, I can live with Nos. 3 and 5, which amount to the same thing, and No 4 fills me with mixed reactions. A "leap of faith" would require a decision between these five possibilities (including No. 5) that I am not [b]able [/b]to take. - David: Stick with 1) and 3). the others make no sense if rationality is important.
OK - Submit
Preview