Punkbass, I'm afraid there's been some confusion as to where I'm coming from. And this has to be understood to prevent you having the idea that you've wasted your time on me
Earlier you asked me why I wasn't looking for guidance, and just now you stated: "I do think it's this "trying to explain" that is holding you back, though I recognize your desire to disagree." and "I think you do have a complete picture, really, it's just so simple you can't believe it." These make it clear to me we're not tunneling towards each other.
Why am I not looking for guidance? Because I am subscribing to a purely scientific world view. A world view that tells me: this is what we see happening, and this is our best explanation of it to date. I do not miss or feel that "spirituality" (I'll explain in a bit why the "-marks) would add anything to the understanding of that world view. In fact I see it as diminishing the beauty of what I'm observing. An extreme example to clarify my point (mind you, specifically chose this example because I think you might relate, this is not an example of why I do not subscribe to the God Alone Is world view. Just hoping you'll see my take on it more clearly): if I consider the Grand Canyon, part of the beauty is being humbled by the time it took nature to craft this magnificent natural phenomena. If you consider what it had to take to sculpt it into the beauty that it is, it fills me with awe. On the other hand there's the world view God created the Earth in a day, and he just went: let there be a Grand Canyon and poof there it is. To me that would be a major bummer and I really for the life of me can't understand why people insist that variety has so much more beauty in it than the process of millions of years of slow erosion. Now, why did I put spirituality in "-marks. I think the emotions I feel when I regard natures wonders or the Universe's vastness or even the "miracle" (I don't have to explain those "-marks do I?
) of birth, I think are rather the same as those who get those emotions from seeing God through these phenomena. So, in the literal definition of the word, I do lack spirituality in my life, but if you regard the result of spirituality and my own feelings, I do think they are similar. As I said to Tim, I do not feel the need for spirituality.
Phew. And that was only my first point
So sorry for blabbering, but I'm going to blabber some more.
"I do think it's this "trying to explain" is holding you back" and "I think you do have a complete picture, really, it's just so simple you can't believe it". This is where I think it becomes clear we seek different things when we look at the world around us. I'm not completely sure what you think I'm being held back from, but I can assure you I'm convinced this trying to explain is a very powerful driving force which I am unable to resist. That is my inner conviction. I do understand the appeal of a simple view and maybe you do not appreciate me poking around in it purely out of curiosity. I get the sense you'd be willing to if I were to show a inclination to go along with it and consider it a possibility which I could adopt as my own. If that's the case, I do have to disappoint you. You see, at the start of the thread I tried to explain that scientifically speaking, I cannot disprove God. Which doesn't bother me, since I see no evidence for God. But it would seem to me that would entertain the idea of there being a God, there would have to be an explanation why this God has opted not to present itself to me. I did make the disclaimers:
God's existence and it's characteristics cannot objectively be proven. If you have a problem with this, no worries, there are a host of other threads to vent any issues you might have with this. Second disclaimer is that I'm not arguing here: God is this or that. My conviction is still God's existence and characteristics are unknown. My argument is going to be: based on my personal experiences and those of others, it's not unreasonable to conclude that God could be like this.
Now it does seem to me that is what you are arguing. You are telling me: "God Alone Is". as a fact. And the reason I do not accept this fact is that a. it's so simple I can't believe it, b. all this trying to explain is holding you back and c. I feel the need to disagree.
This is exactly why I put in the Second disclaimer. I very strongly feel that your theory feel right to you, but on a very personal level. I respect that. However. I do expect the same respect in return. This is supposed to be an exchange of ideas. It's supposed to give me a better understanding how people see, experience and 'interact' with this concept God. I'm curious to find out how people ended up in the world view they're currently in. I don't mind at all that your world view contradicts with mine, in fact it's what I'm looking for. I expect people to not mind my world view and how it differs from theirs. It's fine you think the way I approach the idea of God Alone Is all wrong, but that's not going to stop me, or convince me I shouldn't. I do mind you telling me the idea is so simple I can't believe it, because that is an assumption on your behalf, and in light of me trying to explain this idea isn't that simple to me at all if you look at the consequences of that idea, it's the wrong assumption to make. To you it might seem simple and perfect and clarifying, to me it isn't. So what? Does it matter?
Lastly, if you got this far
, I do not desire to disagree just because of argument's sake or because your ideas are threatening, I need to disagree because I do. Simple as that. Heh, I heard you like simple, so I put simple into ... so you can ... while .., nope, this isn't working at all. Never mind.
Right. I hope that clears up a bit of foggy business.
I would say ideas are being exchanged.
