(November 27, 2019 at 5:47 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(November 27, 2019 at 9:39 am)Tom Fearnley Wrote: Could you define "big person" please? Why is there any other type of intelligent creation that doesn't involve the brain/neurons? There is no evidence for it where there should be.
What would those well know theologians argue that beats my argument against the arguments for God? For instance?
It looks as though every big religion has a popular version and an educated version.
For example Americans tend to know Taoism through translations of the Tao Te Ching, so they think of it as kind of abstract and philosophical. But in China if you go to a Taoist temple, the outer hall is likely to have pictures of Hell so as to scare the rank and file into behaving themselves.
When I say "big person," I am talking about the popular image of the Christian God. A human-like figure who has ideas and emotions and changes his mind and is basically like a man with extra power. This is the God you are arguing against. This is the God that William Blake (a Christian) called "Nobodaddy," since -- like every educated Christian -- he agreed that it doesn't exist.
It takes a lot of work to get past that "Sky Daddy" image. I suspect that most Christians are interested more in the ceremony and emotional support of religion, so they haven't done a good job of learning or explaining the real philosophy. For the most part you have to read lots of things and put in the work.
This book might be a reasonable introduction:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030020...taft_p1_i2
Would you consider theistic personalism to be an educated stance on the matter of God? Because that's a major difference in stance among educated Christians.
