(October 1, 2019 at 7:28 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: If I could define it comprehensively, it wouldn't be God. I know what God is not, and it's not something that moves around space and time and thinks about when or how it should intervene. God is the source and sustenance of existence, but I don't know — I cannot know — what that is, directly, only indirectly what results from it, such as matter and consciousness. I also know that I am not God, fortunately. Whatever representations we make are only imperfect analogies and metaphors. So you could say that any description of God is a limitation and caricature and, therefore, a straw-man. I think the video does a good job of showing that biblical stories cannot be the whole story. We can't try to limit God in any way, including with our religions.
You do understand that the video was not meant to be an exact depiction of the Biblical god, but a sardonic depiction meant to show how ridiculous some of the stories, and the god depicted is, right?
For example; a god that wants all of humanity to believe and worship him, yet only appears to a very small geographical area, and a barbaric and illiterate tribe.
Quote:I do believe in Yahweh/Jahweh, yes. Praise Jah.The descriptor is etymologically from Hebrew and means what causes to exist. That is God. The root of all being.
So, does this thing that 'causes to exist', is it a being? Or can it be an unknown natural process?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
