FYI: I know you're not posting this to me.. I'll assume you don't mind me answering it anyway.
To continue with this metafore, the problem is that you are asking us to look at a forest that isn't actually visible.
Sure.
I like to call them "laws of nature".
See, we already have a word for those things. Calling them something else, doesn't change the nature of those things.
Calling them "god", especially, is very confusing. The word "god" comes with a WHOLE load of baggage, none of which is appropriate to be used as a descriptive label for the forces/laws of nature.
I insist on using language correctly. A table is a table and not a chair.
Sure, you could choose that "for you", table means chair and chair means table. But you'll only end up confusing the people you are talking to.
When you say to someone "laws / forces of nature", they know what you are talking about. Things like gravity, electro-magnetism, etc.
When you suddenly decide to substitute that label with "god", nobody will know you are actually talking about gravity etc.
This is how communication and language works.
Sure. And that "hard reality" doesn't include any "supernatural" shenannigans.
Well.... as I said in the previous post.... It is you (in general, as in "theists") that are adding things to reality, which do not manifest.
If you wish to talk to us in a "unifying" manner, to identify "common ground"... well, that's rather easy... Just talk about observable reality, without adding any things to it that have no manifestation. There's your "common ground", right there....
Great post. I just now read it, somehow missed it first. Thank you.
This has been already re-iterated. And again, you did it so well. I was raised as hard-core atheist and pragmatist and humanist, and the whole society around me was like that. Very good society, BTW, despite much demonization of it in the West in light of "us and them", "we and enemy" mentality. Never ever I was taught, there is God. But we were introduced to the concepts of different religious thought through history, classical literature, works of great philosophers of West and East. It wasn't a narrow indoctrination. I say this only to say, I understand perfectly. There is atheist and super skeptic "still living in me".
I do not say that , "OK you believe in this ghost that I think exists because I like to think so, and I can't produce any proof except my emphatical and repeated word from me". Yes, it's foolish to do so.
You were very good to refute my weak arguments, I do lay down weapons and declare that I cannot counter your logic with anything. At least, on this "battle ground". But you know, they weren't intended as convincing arguments, but an opening of a door into a conversation, an attempt to change the angle of view.
The thing is, I think, your approach is at fault. You separate, you cut reality into pieces. I propose a kind of "holistic" approach. Take the whole phenomenon of existence and life (as integral part of this existence). Do not separate living and non-living matter, humans and flora and fauna, physics and biology. Consider the world as we know it as a complete, one thing. A system of inter-relation and inter-connectedness. Like that idea of biosphere once introduced into science and on which we today base our understanding of how life exists on our planet (though we don't act accordingly).
If you allow this preposition, then, look at your own intelligence and the "intelligence" manifest in the world around us - we call it scientific knowledge - but in fact it's a true description of God. BUT of course, God is much much more than that. So far, we can see only 0.000000000000000000000000000001% and unless humanity evolves in their sensory/intellectual/social capacity, there is no possibility to grow qualitatively in this understanding/knowledge. We probably hit our glass wall or close to it. We still risk self-extermination as a very real possibility, it's enough indication of our low step of development, no matter what we think of ourselves.
You know, some physicist on the fringe still propose "ether" hypotheses. I've read some of their books. Interesting. But not convincing to me as they are. Could this emptiness, this imagined "ether" be what God is? Just a spontaneous crazy idea. But not new for sure.
Anyways. You are right. I cannot show you this "God". Here He is, in this burning bush or on that thunderous mountain top or in that moving pillar of fire. Impossible task!!! I and you very well know it. That's why you are so confident in challenging me.
I'm saying, God is so obvious to all of us, that we easily overlook Him. It's so simple. But because of it, it's probably the hardest thing ever for us.
