If there was a loving God, would you accept him?

[Tonus]

1) What alternative would I suggest?

There is one option in which many of the bloggers on this site have already rejected. That option is interpreting the world not first on the basis of empirical observation, but on the the transcendent nature of God as defined by Scripture (Bible).

But if you stop at "God" in your last sentence, your point is not changed in any way. Or if you change it to "God as defined by the Quran." Or "God as defined by [insert holy text]." If you accept one, there must be a basis for it, otherwise you must accept the others. Even so, you would need to reject the basis for those others. Therefore:

A- Do you have a basis on which you accept your premise, and can you explain it to us?
B- Do you accept the premise of someone who would use the Quran as the basis for his approach? If not, why not?

2) What basis do we have to put empirical investigation before any other alternative?

Many of you have challenged me on what basis could an alternative be made. Let me ask first, on what basis do we make empiricism the first paradigm for understanding the world?

Well, for one thing, it seems that humans initially tried the "make something up on the spot" method of explaining how things work or why things happen, then found that the scientific method worked much more effectively and happened to answer those questions correctly.

Why would we go back to a method that did not work and continues to not work? As above, do you have a reasonable basis for going back to those methods, and can you describe it? And do you also accept or reject the approach of someone who worships a different god? Why or why not?

Simply asking us to forego a method that has worked --and continues to work-- for a method that never worked isn't good enough. You're not asking us to think outside of the box; you're asking us to climb back into the box. That seems backwards to me.

---

The problem with your article and your comment is what is beauty, courage, right, wrong, good, and evil apart from God? If your paradigm is that all experience is simply chemical reactions than in your system these concepts don't exist. People are simply responding to stimuli. That is not a concept of beauty. These concepts only having meaning in world that has more meaning than simply chemical neurological reactions. Therefore, your article has little merit because it asserts philosophical ideas that has no basis within your paradigms. Arguably, these ideas have been borrowed from a theist world view. This is why I have not dealt with your article.

You are aware that people have been having deep, emotional, transcendent experiences through the use of drugs and stimulants for a very long time, yes? Those are responses to chemical stimulation, and people report that they can be just as moving and life-altering as any other experience. Did god create mushrooms and cocaine in order to help us find him?