Why do Gods

[Eudaimonist]

The mind seems to be conditioned by statues and the like. Together with the state of man in the material, equating "God" to yourself.

That's not why. The issue is epistemological. The question is: how can we know that God exists, whether or not God is a "single isolated entity"? What evidence can lead to this conclusion? God appears to be "hidden" from this perspective.

Your example of the rose blooming doesn't cut it with this sort of epistemology. There isn't any reason to think that a rose would fail to bloom if God didn't exist. There is no role for God in this process of a rose blooming, since it seems to be entirely natural. This makes God an unnecessary assumption. God is superfluous to the natural universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

Yet the pattern in nature seems to suggest that complex things come from increasingly simpler things, which does not scream that this is God's handiwork.

Im trying not to get into the whole Darwinism debate but you keep throwing bait.

We aren't all labeled with tags that say "Made by God" either. Seeing a rose bloom and calling it evidence for God only works if you already accept God's existence.

I dont have to presuppose the existence of God when a rose is in bloom anymore than I have to presuppose a builder when looking at a house.

A rose blooming is more of an emotional appeal than actual evidence. It sounds romantic which is probably why it feels like your answer is the answer. That may not necessarily be the case.

I'll use another one then. Everytime you drive your car.

Let me make sure I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying atheists think of themselves as gods?

No. Your ability to think that I think that you think you are a God, is because of God.

 

[Greg1234]

That's not why. The issue is epistemological. The question is: how can we know that God exists, whether or not God is a "single isolated entity"? What evidence can lead to this conclusion? God appears to be "hidden" from this perspective.

The unseen is made evident through what is seen. The way to the Father is through the Son. Detracting from what is given only to compound issues with the attempt to carve your own path is recognized in text as the effect of the ego. Further, you seem to be faltering. How can we know that an architect exists when we find a house which predates the presumed origin of all intelligent life. Through the work of architecture. This is just the starting point and the work of the Father in his creation serves as a corollary, a natural effect of what has come to pass.

In the past, with the Father Son and Holy Spirit seen as one (which indeed they are, yet may not be seen as so through interpretation), records have been made without discernment. Labeling a single entity, the manifestation of the expanse of God in a Son of God, as God, is not wrong, and is clearly seen by those who have grown in study. But it seems to have a crippling effect on atheists. This is already resolved.

Your example of the rose blooming doesn't cut it with this sort of epistemology. There isn't any reason to think that a rose would fail to bloom if God didn't exist. There is no role for God in this process of a rose blooming, since it seems to be entirely natural.

The boot sequence of your computer is entirely natural. No intervention from the programmer. The computer did not build itself.

This makes God an unnecessary assumption. God is superfluous to the natural universe.

Only when random mutaion is hailed as the Lord and creator. This is in fact the purpose for which it was invented.

 

[Greg1234]

I suspect that the child dying has conveniently been labled the devils work.

It is not at my convenience that I judge the will developed, and the opportunities taken, which have led an entity to its current state. The path he or she has embarked upon is only seen as an end, rather than a means in the myopia of a purely material perception The saying "Only God can judge me" has its roots in this spectrum of reality.

 

[ukgrace]

The unseen is made evident through what is seen. The way to the Father is through the Son. Detracting from what is given only to compound issues with the attempt to carve your own path is recognized in text as the effect of the ego. Further, you seem to be faltering. How can we know that an architect exists when we find a house which predates the presumed origin of all intelligent life. Through the work of architecture. This is just the starting point and the work of the Father in his creation serves as a corollary, a natural effect of what has come to pass.

In the past, with the Father Son and Holy Spirit seen as one (which indeed they are, yet may not be seen as so through interpretation), records have been made without discernment. Labeling a single entity, the manifestation of the expanse of God in a Son of God, as God, is not wrong, and is clearly seen by those who have grown in study. But it seems to have a crippling effect on atheists. This is already resolved.



The boot sequence of your computer is entirely natural. No intervention from the programmer. The computer did not build itself.

Only when random mutaion is hailed as the Lord and creator. This is in fact the purpose for which it was invented.

It is not at my convenience that I judge the will developed, and the opportunities taken, which have led an entity to its current state. The path he or she has embarked upon is only seen as an end, rather than a means in the myopia of a purely material perception The saying "Only God can judge me" has its roots in this spectrum of reality.

Pure claptrap.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The unseen is made evident through what is seen. The way to the Father is through the Son. Detracting from what is given only to compound issues with the attempt to carve your own path is recognized in text as the effect of the ego. Further, you seem to be faltering. How can we know that an architect exists when we find a house which predates the presumed origin of all intelligent life. Through the work of architecture. This is just the starting point and the work of the Father in his creation serves as a corollary, a natural effect of what has come to pass.

In the past, with the Father Son and Holy Spirit seen as one (which indeed they are, yet may not be seen as so through interpretation), records have been made without discernment. Labeling a single entity, the manifestation of the expanse of God in a Son of God, as God, is not wrong, and is clearly seen by those who have grown in study. But it seems to have a crippling effect on atheists. This is already resolved.

First off, good job in not getting into the design/Darwinism (?) debate.

Secondly, I've pointed this out elsewhere and I hope others have done it long before I have; you're comparing proverbial apples and oranges, except in this case, I'd coin a new version, apples and microchips. Apples and oranges, for two examples, are organic objects, which interact with the environment in varied ways that reflect a more living relationship with other similar things, as well as a diverse pattern of events that proceeds in the earth, such as weather and progress of time (time zones, especially). Microchips, on the other hand, are inorganic and mechanical. they only interact with what they are programmed to interact with, namely, the motherboard of a computer it is installed into.

It is not unreasonable to posit a designer or architect for things that have no organic nature to them, such as houses, watches or computers. But to say that cells, humans, animals or such require some even greater designer is not only to underestimate the capacity of an organic system to bring forth organisms from proto-living matter, but to posit an entity beyond necessity to use Occam's terminology. God is not necessary for every person to make basic sense out of how the universe or the earth functions as a dynamic system of organic and natural entities and processes respectively.

And thirdly, on this Trinitarian idea, you seem to again be multipling entities beyond necessity. If God is necessarily an entity that is ultimately simple, then positing three parts of this one entity is only serving to further confuse someone who is genuinely interested.

The boot sequence of your computer is entirely natural. No intervention from the programmer. The computer did not build itself.

Only when random mutaion is hailed as the Lord and creator. This is in fact the purpose for which it was invented.

There are different forms of natural as I just pointed out, and I don't think anyone said the computer built itself.

No one is making mutation to be the ultimate force behind evolutionary biology, or have you overlooked the more important process of natural selection in relation to the evolution of species?

 

[JohnCR]

Im trying not to get into the whole Darwinism debate but you keep throwing bait.
I dont have to presuppose the existence of God when a rose is in bloom anymore than I have to presuppose a builder when looking at a house.

To suggest that life is obvious evidence of God's existence could also be considered "bait" to get into a Darwinism debate. Think about it. You say that life is proof of God's existence, implying that life could not have come from any other source. I then have to point out that there are other possible explanations for life.

As for the house comparison, you should read ToHoldNothing's explanation of why the inorganic and organic cannot be compared in this way. He articulates this crucial point much more effectively than I can.

I'll use another one then. Everytime you drive your car.

This is also not proof for the existence of God. I honestly don't even know where you are going with this.

No. Your ability to think that I think that you think you are a God, is because of God.

You really weren't making yourself very clear. Instead of clarifying though, I guess you just wanted to make a witty retort. Ok, whatever.

 

[Greg1234]

To suggest that life is obvious evidence of God's existence could also be considered "bait" to get into a Darwinism debate. Think about it. You say that life is proof of God's existence, implying that life could not have come from any other source. I then have to point out that there are other possible explanations for life.

There is the probability argument in its various refinements and there is design. I have just a much possible explanations for a 747 having arisen through chance. Even the Great Pyramid. The human system trumps all of these.

This is also not proof for the existence of God. I honestly don't even know where you are going with this.

When you know what "God" is, you will see.

You really weren't making yourself very clear. Instead of clarifying though, I guess you just wanted to make a witty retort. Ok, whatever.

You'll get it. Youre a thinking individual, no?

 

[JohnCR]

There is the probability argument in its various refinements and there is design. I have just a much possible explanations for a 747 having arisen through chance. Even the Great Pyramid. The human system trumps all of these.

Can any part of a pyramid move or make any substantial interactions with its environment on its own? No. Can any inorganic object do such? Again, no. We are made up of living organisms that can change us without an outside force, as are all living things. Organic creatures have needs like water, sunlight, food, etc. The living mechanisms inside organic creatures have the capacity to make changes to more effectively meet those needs. Inorganic objects do not have needs, and they are not composed of living systems capable of change. Therefore, it is more appropriate to assume any organized inorganic material (like a house, bridge, pyramid) was caused by an outside force. You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Greg1234]

First off, good job in not getting into the design/Darwinism (?) debate.

The Darwinism debate has not yet begun.

Secondly, I've pointed this out elsewhere and I hope others have done it long before I have; you're comparing proverbial apples and oranges, except in this case, I'd coin a new version, apples and microchips. Apples and oranges, for two examples, are organic objects, which interact with the environment in varied ways that reflect a more living relationship with other similar things, as well as a diverse pattern of events that proceeds in the earth, such as weather and progress of time (time zones, especially). Microchips, on the other hand, are inorganic and mechanical. they only interact with what they are programmed to interact with, namely, the motherboard of a computer it is installed into.

You don't like computers? Lets use a house then. A multi story house made from cedar tree wood, thatched with grass wood and leaves as the roof,its frame held together with mud and vines, and most importantly the instructions of how this structure was built is decoded in it is only language to English from which all houses were constructed. These instructions of course, were filed into a rock with a sharp object, possibly a natural stone.

Lets take the Great Pyramid. Of course these stones can be found in various parts of the natural mountains. There could have been a landslide all the rocks just happened to fall, lightning stuck the correct position thousands of times to cut all the rocks in perfect pieces. How they were positioned to make rooms and tunnels is just a matter of a volcanic eruption which then aided by gravity, caused all the rocks to fall in the exact spot. [insert 1500 page excerpt on Gravity here]. Never mind that the Great pyramid and the house has little to no moving cordinated parts making it sub par in comparison to the human. Never mind modern man's difficulty to design such a monument, chance has it.

It is not unreasonable to posit a designer or architect for things that have no organic nature to them, such as houses, watches or computers. But to say that cells, humans, animals or such require some even greater designer is not only to underestimate the capacity of an organic system to bring forth organisms from proto-living matter, but to posit an entity beyond necessity to use Occam's terminology. God is not necessary for every person to make basic sense out of how the universe or the earth functions as a dynamic system of organic and natural entities and processes respectively.

Man only wishes that he could make a system like this, pump as powerful as the heart, a computer as efficient as the human brain, aircraft as complex as the eagle, and the list goes on. (Do you know what the Mylin Sheath is? Next time youre wiring your home, think about it.) All built from organic material, and runs on nothing but carbs proteins various minerals etc. Today's Hybrids run on Ethanol. Almost there.

And thirdly, on this Trinitarian idea, you seem to again be multipling entities beyond necessity. If God is necessarily an entity that is ultimately simple, then positing three parts of this one entity is only serving to further confuse someone who is genuinely interested.

Its not to confuse you. There are not multiple entities. Only one. There is only one source from which all force emanates.

No one is making mutation to be the ultimate force behind evolutionary biology, or have you overlooked the more important process of natural selection in relation to the evolution of species?

Mutation is the creator. Natural Selection is more or less a tautology.

 

[Greg1234]

Can any part of a pyramid move or make any substantial interactions with its environment on its own?

Irrelevant. The rocks in the pyramid interact with the environment just fine. And can be mobilized through various forces

No. Can any inorganic object do such? Again, no. We are made up of living organisms that can change us without an outside force, as are all living things. Organic creatures have needs like water, sunlight, food, etc. The living mechanisms inside organic creatures have the capacity to make changes to more effectively meet those needs. Inorganic objects do not have needs, and they are not composed of living systems capable of change.

Again irrelavant. A rock is capable of change and both location and proximity can be changed through various natural means. In essence. The felling of a tree is movement and interaction. A rock slide is movement and interaction.

Therefore, it is more appropriate to assume any organized inorganic material (like a house, bridge, pyramid) was caused by an outside force. You are comparing apples to oranges.

You are forgetting that rock is natural.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The Darwinism debate has not yet begun.

Even though most evolutionists are Neo-Darwinists, not Darwinists, but you used the term out of context, it appears

You don't like computers? Lets use a house then. A multi story house made from cedar tree wood, thatched with grass wood and leaves as the roof,its frame held together with mud and vines, and most importantly the instructions of how this structure was built is decoded in it is only language to English from which all houses were constructed. These instructions of course, were filed into a rock with a sharp object, possibly a natural stone.

Lets take the Great Pyramid. Of course these stones can be found in various parts of the natural mountains. There could have been a landslide all the rocks just happened to fall, lightning stuck the correct position thousands of times to cut all the rocks in perfect pieces. How they were positioned to make rooms and tunnels is just a matter of a volcanic eruption which then aided by gravity, caused all the rocks to fall in the exact spot. [insert 1500 page excerpt on Gravity here]. Never mind that the Great pyramid and the house has little to no moving cordinated parts making it sub par in comparison to the human. Never mind modern man's difficulty to design such a monument, chance has it.

Man only wishes that he could make a system like this, pump as powerful as the heart, a computer as efficient as the human brain, aircraft as complex as the eagle, and the list goes on. (Do you know what the Mylin Sheath is? Next time youre wiring your home, think about it.) All built from organic material, and runs on nothing but carbs proteins various minerals etc. Today's Hybrids run on Ethanol. Almost there.

Eagle is not an aircraft, since aircraft fly by different means than birds, and the parallels of a human brain to a computer and a pump to a heart are problematic and analogical at best.

And JohnCR already pointed out the largest hole in your logic: houses and pyramids and other inanimate/inorganic constructs are not denied to be designed. That you make the leap that Paley did in suggesting that the universe or the earth is even relatively like a watch is only evidence of dangerously limited thinking on your part. To see the complexity of the universe only suggests that we should be in awe and wonder, not automatically posit an agency behind it to feel important and valued by something greater than us.

Its not to confuse you. There are not multiple entities. Only one. There is only one source from which all force emanates.


Mutation is the creator. Natural Selection is more or less a tautology.

They are posited as components of the same whole, you still are explaining it as a composite entity at best. Modalism suggests, alternatively, that the F, S, and HS, are just modes of "God".

Mutation is the generator, not the creator, if we're talking precision of words. Creation is from nothing in essence, generation has previous matter to proceed from. Natural selection is an etiology or ontology. It's how the mutation proceeds into diversity of species, etc.

 

[Greg1234]

Even though most evolutionists are Neo-Darwinists, not Darwinists, but you used the term out of context, it appears

I will just use Darwinist.

Eagle is not an aircraft, since aircraft fly by different means than birds, and the parallels of a human brain to a computer and a pump to a heart are problematic and analogical at best.

An eagle is a biological air-craft. Tuna is being reversed engineered by the military to make a next gen seacraft. The material used is irrelavant. It doesnt matter if a computer, a pump or insulation is made from metal or organic material the same way a naturally built pyramid and a metallic pyramid are of the same category. The reference to man being made from the "mud of the earth" has its significance here.

And JohnCR already pointed out the largest hole in your logic: houses and pyramids and other inanimate/inorganic constructs are not denied to be designed. That you make the leap that Paley did in suggesting that the universe or the earth is even relatively like a watch is only evidence of dangerously limited thinking on your part.

Already addressed. And my thinking is not limited. Even if I had found a house at a time when it was proposed that there was no one around, I would seek out the creator. My perception of the past would change If you want to repeatedly send rocks down a mountain and hope that a pyramid will form. I have no problem with that. None at all.

To see the complexity of the universe only suggests that we should be in awe and wonder, not automatically posit an agency behind it to feel important and valued by something greater than us.

No more of an awe and wonder as labeling the great pyramid the 7th wonder of the world.

They are posited as components of the same whole, you still are explaining it as a composite entity at best. Modalism suggests, alternatively, that the F, S, and HS, are just modes of "God".

Each are whole in themselves. They are one. God made manifest through the son of God and called God is not seperate from God but God manifested. The father has never left his creation. His nature and "image" is made manifest through various means. The idea of segregation and separation is a finite concept. Jesus embodied the Christ.

Mutation is the generator, not the creator, if we're talking precision of words. Creation is from nothing in essence, generation has previous matter to proceed from.

Mutation creates. Natural Selection preserves.

Natural selection is an etiology or ontology. It's how the mutation proceeds into diversity of species, etc.

Natural Selection needs a mutation first do you know that? Natural selection cannot do anything without a mutation. But a mutation does not need natural selection for it to occur. It is mutations which run the show.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I will just use Darwinist.

And you will just be further complicating what is already an involved historical situation where Neo Darwinism is what is accurately referring to evolutionary biology theory today, whereas Darwinism was the original theory made by the namesake Charles Darwin

An eagle is a biological air-craft. Tuna is being reversed engineered by the military to make a next gen seacraft. The material used is irrelavant. It doesnt matter if a computer, a pump or insulation is made from metal or organic material the same way a naturally built pyramid and a metallic pyramid are of the same category. The reference to man being made from the "mud of the earth" has its significance here.

I believe it was dust, but either way, it's insulting to think that we're just God's art class project that wasn't even heated in a kiln.

And eagles are flying organisms. They aren't crafted unless you view them as such, which frankly insults the amazing design they possess by nature of evolutionary adaptation, etc.

And it does matter, since any machine is not even relatively the same as an animal, however much Descartes thought they were.

Already addressed. And my thinking is not limited. Even if I had found a house at a time when it was proposed that there was no one around, I would seek out the creator. My perception of the past would change If you want to repeatedly send rocks down a mountain and hope that a pyramid will form. I have no problem with that. None at all.

Again, you're not seeming to get what we're agreeing with you on: that houses and computers and pyramids require a conscious designer is not what is being debated, we agree that mechanical constructs require outside intervention to exist. What we don't agree on is how biological organisms came to be, and you seem to be misrepresenting evolutionary theory anyway in suggesting it's like a hurricane through a junkyard making a 747, which is not only absurd, but just deliberate misinformation.

No more of an awe and wonder as labeling the great pyramid the 7th wonder of the world.

They're labeled as such because they were impressive feats of human engineering. Awe and wonder of the universe doesn't have to imply that we believe it was engineered or designed or created by a higher human-like entity

Each are whole in themselves. They are one. God made manifest through the son of God and called God is not seperate from God but God manifested. The father has never left his creation. His nature and "image" is made manifest through various means. The idea of segregation and separation is a finite concept. Jesus embodied the Christ.

If each are whole in themselves, they are not united except in purpose, as LDS Godhead theology suggests. But I really don't need to get into theological semantics

Mutation creates. Natural Selection preserves.

Natural Selection needs a mutation first do you know that? Natural selection cannot do anything without a mutation. But a mutation does not need natural selection for it to occur. It is mutations which run the show.

I didn't deny that natural selection is contingent on mutation, but mutation is not necessarily how adaptations occur, since natural selection weeds out the ineffective mutations that do not provide for survival.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

G*d gave us a choice, and if we know he exists then there IS no choice, because I mean... He's like, right over there and we KNOW that we best love Him because the alternative becomes pretty obvious once He tells you. You know, to your face.

That's the most satisfying description I've seen to the OP. I'm not sure if whoever posted this was being sarcastic, but I like it anyway

It beautifully encompasses my agnostic leanings. No one KNOWS God exists, do they? Is there not always the small possibility that you are wrong, that you will die and nothing happens? If God came out in the open to everyone there would be no debate, no thought, no spiritual progression, no mystery, no quest for the unknown. Also, due to human nature, EVEN IF God did "appear" to everyone, people would no doubt interpret this appearance differently due to our subjective human realities and it would end up making just as much drama as we currently have. I prefer the twinge of mystery surrounding God, it makes life more interesting.

Question: Given enough time, could some atoms/molecules arrange themselves into a nice log cabin? By some process. For example, some trees fall down perfectly on top of each other over the course of a few years. In between each tree falling a dust storm blows through followed quickly by rain which packs mud between the logs. Then a bunch of termites happen to eat away the wood to make a perfectly rectangular hole in the house. Some more termites eat away another nearby piece of wood and make a perfectly rectangular door. A storm blows through and the wind blows the other door into place. I could go on thinking up improbable (yet possible) things that could happen to "naturally" make a log cabin. So is it possible to have a house made without a "creator"?

 

[razeontherock]

You're making a classic, ancient mistake. Separating the natural from the Spiritual, or trying to to. That route has no choice but to fail. The two are irreversibly connected.

 

[Penumbra]

That's the most satisfying description I've seen to the OP. I'm not sure if whoever posted this was being sarcastic, but I like it anyway

It beautifully encompasses my agnostic leanings. No one KNOWS God exists, do they? Is there not always the small possibility that you are wrong, that you will die and nothing happens? If God came out in the open to everyone there would be no debate, no thought, no spiritual progression, no mystery, no quest for the unknown. Also, due to human nature, EVEN IF God did "appear" to everyone, people would no doubt interpret this appearance differently due to our subjective human realities and it would end up making just as much drama as we currently have. I prefer the twinge of mystery surrounding God, it makes life more interesting.

The thing is, mystery only makes sense when a given deity has no immediate need to be known. If a god's primary objective is to give mankind mystery, struggle, quests, and so forth, then it might make sense for this god to be hidden. He could set up mankind in such a way that they face great difficulty, struggling, and suffering, can trace their origins and find themselves to be descended from other species in a constant battle for survival, and can trace the universe to an apparent singularity with no distinctive evidence of god anywhere to be seen. He could sit back and watch mankind come up with various depictions of what he might be, what he wants them to do, what plans he has for them, whether he's nice or cruel, and watch them attempt to pray to him and not give answers. In a word, deism. Or perhaps one could take a more panentheistic approach and figure that if there is a god that it is inextricably one with all of existence instead of some separate consciousness with plans and schemes.

On the other hand, there exist organized religions that claim that their god requires you to have the correct understanding of him in order to avoid the wrath of this god. Muslims and Christians, for instance, are generally pretty focused on the fact that if you are of the wrong religion, you'll have an unpleasant afterlife compared to themselves. They promote faith and belief and place great importance on what one believes because it affects the person's soul so much.

When one puts these two views together, however, and says that god purposely stays back and remains a mystery while all the while demanding that his creations figure him out or burn, it looses all sense. He's basically asking his population to roll dice to determine whether they will be punished or not. I mean there's Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, Odin, Krishna, Buddha- so many claims.

Question: Given enough time, could some atoms/molecules arrange themselves into a nice log cabin? By some process. For example, some trees fall down perfectly on top of each other over the course of a few years. In between each tree falling a dust storm blows through followed quickly by rain which packs mud between the logs. Then a bunch of termites happen to eat away the wood to make a perfectly rectangular hole in the house. Some more termites eat away another nearby piece of wood and make a perfectly rectangular door. A storm blows through and the wind blows the other door into place. I could go on thinking up improbable (yet possible) things that could happen to "naturally" make a log cabin. So is it possible to have a house made without a "creator"?

Given enough time, if something is possible, then as more and more time goes by, it becomes more and more probable. But if something is impossible, more time does not help it become possible.

For instance, if I flip a bunch of coins, it would be pretty unrealistic for me to expect 1 million heads in a row. The odds against such a scenario occurring are astronomically high. But if I flip a number of coins that dramatically dwarfs the number 1 million, then it becomes more likely. As a more graspable example, flipping five heads in a row is pretty unlikely (1 in 32 chance), but if I flip a coin 10,000 times, I'll probably have many streaks of five heads in a row, and more.

Given your example, I doubt it's possible. Trees rot and fade away and don't stick together very well, plus bugs and stuff get to them. There is no self-correcting process here.

-Lyn

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You're making a classic, ancient mistake. Separating the natural from the Spiritual, or trying to to. That route has no choice but to fail. The two are irreversibly connected.

Microchips are not natural, they're synthetic, they're constructed. They're material, but they aren't purely natural in any sense beyond their physicality. I don't deny an interrelation between the spiritual and natural, though I would use spiritual in the sense more of the psychological or psychical to use an older term from Freud. Our minds are inevitably dependent on our brains' proper functioning, for one example

 

[Key]

keep themselves so well hidden? what are they afraid of?

Those that ask this question never really want the answer.

Just saying.

 

[AcornThornpicker]

That's the most satisfying description I've seen to the OP. I'm not sure if whoever posted this was being sarcastic, but I like it anyway

<<SNIP>> I prefer the twinge of mystery surrounding God, it makes life more interesting.

Thank you! It was half sarcastic in that the idea of an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent G*d appearing to us seems... well, absurd, doesn't it? But I do believe that mystery is an incredible point of Faith.

Don't confuse this for those "I don't want to know and ruin the fun" excuses, because if you think that's the motive you are missing the point. FINDING G*d is not the point; LOOKING is what counts.

If someone asks, I will tell them I am certain of my Gods. I have found them. But they didn't tell me who they were, and I had to go out of my way to find most of them (I understand this isn't a clear parallel to Xianity, but hold a moment). I'm still trying to understand what They want, who They are.

But this process of discovery is more enlightening than the discovery itself. If I was simply told, "This is what is True. Believe!", then I should never have searched all the religious texts, messages, and ideas that I had. I wouldn't have found exactly WHY this made sense, why it worked better for me than another system, or more importantly WHY I so utterly believe in this.

Sure, I can tell you "This heating element is hot, do not touch it!", but odds are you are going to touch it. Why? Because it becomes entirely abstract unless we have proven to ourselves that it is true.

Sure, this is empirical -- Faith is not. But this was never about showing the world that heating elements do indeed get hot, this was about showing OURSELVES that this is so. And if we can prove to ourselves that a given item of Faith is valid to us, then that makes it all the more relevant in our lives regardless of whether you believe in the hot quality of the element.

To this day, I still have bouts where I will announce [silently, I am not that insane =P] "If one more thing goes wrong today I am quitting You!" Things do go wrong, but I never do quit. I am still certain, even when I'm questioning. And even in this certainty, I do not know that I am right. I am constantly learning, re-assessing, but I am not changing my Faith in Them. They are mysterious; if they were not, I would imagine that we should have more Heathens in the world.

The ability to explore Mystery is a gift. Think back to that High School science class where the teacher tells you to add the chemicals together and test them yourselves, without telling you what you are supposed to find. If you are given a solution, you will not learn the material, but rather you will find an end point and match it up with the actual solution. Is this easier? Of course. Does it bear any meaning to you, other than another simple class passed?

Silly example, I know, but you evolutionists [I know there are Theistic Evolutionists, but I assume there are no Atheist Creationists (??)] ought to appreciate that it is mistakes which make all the difference: Random mutations [read: genetic "mistakes", aberrations, etc] lead to new genetic traits, new features, new species! Some of modern invention is a fluke, an accident, a byproduct, etc. If we knew what we were making, these should never have been formed.

We cannot grow along a straight line from Ignorance to the Truth. Being blind to our destination is what allows us to find new meaning in our existence, new paths to a different lifestyle, new experiences and new knowledge. Faith in ANYTHING that tells us to be better than what we are gives us an inspiration to find our Path to the Truth. Most people recommend the "tried and true" Paths out of compassion, but again all we can ever give is counsel and advise -- we have to find G*d through our own exploration. The Journey to becoming closer to something Greater is what matters in life.

I also like to think that G*d wants us to pull the leg work; nobody really wants to force someone to love them, they want it to be evoked normally. This is a certain fallibility to the Divine, but I think it's still in line with the Christian idea that God can do everything except be in communion by Himself. He wants our love as much as anyone would, and He wants us to give it to Him freely. If the Divine were made known to us, we couldn't help but love it. Where's the fun in that? ;-)