Freedom of Religion

[Abracadabra]

It may be possible that there is a god.
However it is so unlikely and contradicts the universe we know.

I agree with you completely to a point.

In fact, I'm personally quite confident that there does not exist any external separate personified Zeus-like "God" who has created us with the intention of of keeping us as his eternal pet servants if we're "nice" and will cast us into a state of eternal torment if we're "naughty".

That's a Santa Claus "God" concept. I'm personally convinced that those kinds of fables are indeed nonsense. And no science is required to even reject.

I mean, why would an all-powerful omniscient God have a need for grossly inferior sentient-monkey servants? In what possible way could they "serve" him? Moreover, what would be the point in casting the naughty monkeys into a place of eternal torment and suffering? Why not just let them die peacefully? What would be the point in being so damn mean about it?

According to the Christian fables, no human monkey is worthy of this God's heavenly paradise anyway. They are all unworthy in their own right and can only obtain acceptance of this God through "Grace". And even that can only be obtained by condoning to have this God's son nailed to a pole to save the butt of the unworthy monkey.

I mean, with all due respect to anyone who buys into that picture, it makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

You say,...

However it is so unlikely and contradicts the universe we know.

Yes, but is that really true?

Sure, the "Jealous Santa Claus" picture of a God does indeed contradict the universe we know (especially if you need to accept all the baloney contained within those fables).

But maybe it's not the universe we have the wrong picture of?

Maybe it's the concept of "god" that we have the wrong picture of.

Maybe "God" isn't a separate egotistical Santa Claus waiting to pass judgment on everyone on some "Christmas Judgment Day".

Maybe it's a totally different concept altogether?

Maybe the "real God" (if it exists), truly is beyond our current ability to even comprehend?

Maybe it truly is a wildly mysterious thing, and it's even completely compatible with scientific knowledge. Maybe the only reason it seems like it couldn't be, is because we have grossly wrong ideas of what "spirit" should even be.

~~~

I guess it is true that I'm probably far more "open-minded" with respect to the true nature of what spirit might be than anything else.

That's what keeps me agnostic with respect to the concept of spirit.

~~~

People keep accusing me of trying to "define" spirit in a way that might be compatible with known facts. Well of course that's what I do. That's the whole point to it. What would be the point in considering a spirit that I could rule out?

People also accuse me of considering "The God of the Gaps". Well again, of course that's what I do. My only argument there is that the "Gaps" are far wider than people seem to think. They act like science knows everything save for a few tiny gaps that could use a bit of polishing. But that is truly naive.

In fact, that's actually what they used to think about Newtonian physics, and look what happened there. They thought everything was know save for a few minor details. In fact one of Einstein's professors warned Einstein to not even bother pursuing physics because it's basically a dead field save for a few minor explanations.

Those "few minor explanations" erupted into General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, neither of which have come to any final resolution themselves.

General Relativity is super-great for quantitatively describing the behavior of spacetime in very precise and accurate detail. The only problem there is that it also simultaneously opens up a whole can of worms regarding the "true nature" of time and the very meaning of "now" and whether the past and future are fleeting, or whether they both need to preexist in order for General Relatively to even work.

So we've made huge progress in describing the behavior of spacetime, but at what cost? At the cost of losing any possible intuitive understanding of what the "true nature of time" could even mean.

Quantum mechanics has made similar progress. It provides an extremely powerful mathematical model that can quantitatively make probabilistic predictions, but at what cost? We must assume that the underlying fabric of reality totally violates every law of physics we cherish. From superpositions of particles to entanglement behavior that defies the very laws of General Relativity.

Two pillars of modern scientific discovery in direct contradiction with each other.

So where are there "gaps"? It's more like total confusion if you ask me.

To say that there are merely "gaps" in our understanding of things is truly a misrepresentation of the reality of the situation.

We may ultimately have a misguided notion of both "God" and "nature".

IMHO, humanity in general is "agnostic" (i.e. without knowledge) concerning the true nature of reality, whether they confess to it or not.

---

I'm fully aware that there exist agnostic atheists.

In fact, I am one.

I don't claim that spirit exists. I just enjoy pondering the possibilities.

For that, I face condemnation of being branded a complete idiot.

Progress of a kind. I'm glad to hear you say this.

I confessed to being agnostic the day I signed on to these forums.

Religious Views: Gnostic Atheist Agnostic Spiritualist.

I was also using a definition for "Gnostic Atheist" given in the thread on "Important Information for Theists".

From that thread:

Gnostic (strong) atheist

Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist. An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods.

As most everyone can already see, I strongly renounce the validity of certain types of gods (such as the biblical god). I renounce this concept of God based solely on the fact that those fables appear to me to be so highly self-contradicting that they have no prayer of being true, and therefore must be false (as written).

Yet, I'm an agnostic atheist toward other types of "gods". (i.e. ideas along the lines of mysticism, etc., that do not require "god" to be a separate personified entity, but that we may ultimately be "god" in a deeply mysterious way.

From my perspective that's the only type of spiritual essence to reality worthy of consideration.

And even I confess, that it's not easy to justify either. My only stance is that it can't be ruled out. (or at least I can't see where it can be ruled out).

But I confess that this may depend upon a person's demand of precisely what "spirit" must be.

One thing about Eastern Mysticism is that it claims that the true nature of spirit is indeed a 'mystery'. (That's why they call it Mysticism in the first place). So that leaves quite a bit of room for considering various possibilities.

What I see, are people rejecting the obvious idiotic religions like Christianity and Islam (and rightfully so IMHO).

But then they're running around kicking Buddha in the balls without sufficient justification. (ha ha)

Poor Buddha. What did he ever do to deserve a kick in the balls?

Poor guy was trying hard to escape suffering and all people want to do is kick him in the balls for that. What sense does that even make?