| | There are some funhouses in which it is totally unnecessary to enter, because you know what you will find. Such as, any funhouse predicated on the shaky foundation 'Rules For God.'
God/Creator is, God./Creator isn't, God wants, God doesn't want.
If I understand the intellectual concept of 'God', then I can't also suspend that understanding and entertain any belief system based on "Rules For God" offered up my mortals.
But, that applies equally as well to atheists and theists alike, putting forth their respective 'Rules For God.'
As a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, I know little on the topic of 'God', except for the intellectual meta definition, as something or someone who hypothetically sets the rules for this universe and/or created it. Whatever God/Creator is or isn't, that God/Creator is not subject to conditionals suggested by the merely created, of which we all are.
I'm intellectually compelled to admit belief in a form of God/Creator that I'm intellectually unable to define, because I have seen objective proof of at least one possible form of a God/Creator, and of Creation. I can easily share that proof with anybody, and you are free to deny it, on faith: The Universe as it is. The Universe objectively exists, and we were objectively created in it. Intellectually, I am unable to recognize the ability to set a conditional for my own existence, or as well, my own creation. I can't intellectually nullify the fact of my existence as a consequence of that creation. Is the Universe as it is "God enough" to qualify as my Creator? Any attempt to answer that question depends on an absurdity("Rules For God."). It's moot; I'm here. At the very least, the Universe as it is is objectively God/Creator enough. It is only not so if I entertain amusement park rules on the topic God/Creator, and enter the funhouse.
Into this fray rush both the non-agnostic atheists and the non-agnostic theists, with their respective Rules for God. God is ... (anything beginning with those two words is where mere mortals immediately lose me) ...Supernatural("outside of this Universe'), and folks have either
a] not seen Him, but believe He exists in a Form of Their Choosing/as a SuperNatural Being, or equally as logically flawed
b] not seen Him, and therefor believe that No God Exists, because any such God would have to obey a Rule For God, that being, God Must be SuperNatural or else we were not Created and we Do Not Exist.
Equally as stunning, Rules for Intelligence. "I create, therefore, I am intelligent, but that which created me and all I create was not intelligent." aka, intelligence suddenly appeared in this Universe when naked sweaty apes wiped the snot off themselves and started to put up 'Blogs. Nonsense. I say it's turtles all the way down. The Universe that patently created us is either all intelligence, or its all cold process--including us. It is objectively what it is, and the only difference between all intelligence or all cold process we can paint is based on 'Rules for Intelligence' that are highly flawed/biased to parochial wetbits.
Is there a logical conundrum that 'First Creators' face that lets atheists sleep at night? Ie, 'Then who created the First Creator?' Because it begs the question, if instead we were created by cold process, then what cold process created the first cold process? No restful sleep to be found there, and moot.
We're here, we once were not. We were thus created. Creation is no more an issue than existence.
The concept of God/Creator is a singularity, much abused for fun and profit, usually through the jarring application of Rules For God, offered up by the merely created, attempting to set conditionals for their own creation.
And then there is nonsense like this, offered in jest:
If A=A, then maybe A+ -A =0. If there is a logical conundrum in creating a single universe from nothing, then why not create two universes for the price of none?
regards,
Fred
|
|
