"Do you believe in God?" What do you accept and reject as
definition of God? What requirements are there for belief to
exist? The question "Do you believe in God?" contains a lot of
subquestions, which is why I am asking. It is ambiguous as a
question as it stands. == Ok. Supernatural. Another issue.
Driving line between physics and metaphysics. What is natural?
What is not natural? == I have to unpack your compressed
assumptions to be certain I'm understanding your questioning
properly in order to answer it properly. == I am agnostic about
most things. My default position on most things is: "I don't
know". Knowledge I gain is tentative at best. An analogy would
be: certainty for me is "more solid sand" than uncertainty,
which shifts and can't be walked on. I test. I probe. I ask
questions. I consider. If I am going to cross a rope bridge, I
do so with great care. Sometimes I do not cross the bridge at
all and instead find other ways of traveling across. When I see
a 0.0001% I am careful to decide whether or not it is necessary
to round to a 0 because that 0.0001% may be more significant
than it at first appears. So, that gives you a 'gist' of my
approach. I am agnostic towards most things. ==
Deities-as-written are stories constructed to give explanatory
power to various systems. As they stand, I have not found a
written deity whose constructed story matches what I would
consider entirely accurate. However, this does not preclude the
possibility of something in the [SET OF DEITY] yet unknown or
unscribed not existing. It's an area of ongoing investigation
from time to time. The case remains open. I act as-if the
possibility exists. == A full comprehension of God from the
judeo-christian traditions is dependent upon a number of
factors. The sola scriptura is not enough but is it possible
within a fuller tradition within which the scripture is a
part-of? Yes. I investigated this possibility in my mid 20s for
5 years. I converted to Eastern Orthodox and spent a little time
in a monastery, learning their practices. I cannot say what I
learned/experienced is God or not God. I don't know. == I'll
give an example: Sometimes I don't know if I'm doing the right
thing. I make decisions. I know the cognitive processes that
take place. I also know there are systems in play in the world
that are not in my control. There is also the future: Am I
making the decisions that will lead to optimum results, not just
for myself but for whatever direction these larger systems go
into. So, if I say, "Does the future approve of my decision?" Am
I not saying, "Does God approve of my decision?" Is not one
substituting for the other? If I say, "It is random and out of
my control" is that not the same as saying, "It is God and out
of my control", replacing "random" for "God" in the realm of
"choice"? Is Randomness supernatural? Are unknown systems that
function whether we know of them or not, supernatural? If we say
"The laws of physics dictate", could that not be simply a
description of God for a modern era? Do we know if there were a
God that God would be a conscious agent or an agent with a
personality that can't be circumscribed? In a pantheist
worldview, even if we were describe the deepest inner workings
of matter, even if we were to describe the effect of every
cause, they might consider that all we have done is described
the processes of the gods animating things. A realm where there
is no distinction between natural and supernatural - just a
state where, "this is how things are". So, I believe in systems
and processes. Dictionaries are useful but limited. Synonyms are
far more flexible. == By analogy, the dictionary would be your
bible. It defines you. My bible? I'm writing it as I go along.
== The definition of atheist is not one that can apply to me,
for God which is a part of that definition is not adequately
defined for me, rendering the question nonsense. Let's go back
to the beginning of my questions back to you: "What do you
accept and reject as definition of God?" == Could you, for
example, accept a natural God? I'm not saying I'm advocating for
it - I'm just trying to discern what you can accept and what you
reject. == Why not? Look at the Gaia concept for an analogy.
That is a goddess concept and it's not unreasonable to consider
those working for the planet are engaging in worship of the
natural world and its systems and processes. == Or another
consideration: Logic. I come across this a lot in Philosophy
forums. There are those who hold Logic to the level of deity.
For them, the Universe is built upon Logic and all things lead
to Logic and come through Logic, ignoring the fact that Logic is
a human constructed system that happens to work very well (it's
pragmatic) for problem solving, for internal consistency, for
building machines and such. == I know. It's just too pat and dry
for me and contains too many assumptions and unknowns, most
particularly, the "self aware substructures". Is it possible?
Sure. But for me, the jury is out on it. I still maintain that
math, like words, does a great job of describing the Universe in
a story form, but it's still not the Universe itself. ==
