Darwinian -
It happens a lot. When people think of god, they immediately think of the god of christianity or some other religion. That's the problem. The concept of god has been associated with those characters, which is a shame really because the idea of a creator doesn't necessarily have to conform to how those organised religions portray it. When I use the word, I'm referring to nature. To me, god definitely exists, is not a "character" as such, isn't vengeful, doesn't punish, doesn't hate anyone or anything, in fact god loves everything, literally. And I don't pray in the sense that religious people pray. I just occasionally have a quick word, maybe call "him" a name or two, I might ask "what the fuck was all that about? What happened there, what are you playing at you idiot?" etc. To me, talking to god is addressing yourself, addressing everything.
In terms of intelligent design, I don't believe that god ever decided to create anything at all. I believe that everything in existence is already god, was never created, but a manifestation of god. You could say that god is the "untouchable, undefinable, ungraspable (therefore "unprovable") centre of ourselves and everything, and the "us" that we are aware of and interact with / amongst ourselves, is the subjective side of god. A good way of putting it is in the words of, or to paraphrase Bill Hicks (I hate quoting other people but this is a good illustration of what I mean) that we are god subjectively experiencing itself (end paraphrase as this next bit is my own-->) No wonder we can't prove that god exists. We're too occupied being god. That's why I find the idea of proving god so funny. It can't be done because it's right under our noses to such an extent that to "prove" it simply involves knowing it.
I don't reject science, and it doesn't and never has conflicted with my beliefs. I've never come across anything scientific which is in conflict (and therefore challenges, within myself) my views.
It happens a lot. When people think of god, they immediately think of the god of christianity or some other religion. That's the problem. The concept of god has been associated with those characters, which is a shame really because the idea of a creator doesn't necessarily have to conform to how those organised religions portray it. When I use the word, I'm referring to nature. To me, god definitely exists, is not a "character" as such, isn't vengeful, doesn't punish, doesn't hate anyone or anything, in fact god loves everything, literally. And I don't pray in the sense that religious people pray. I just occasionally have a quick word, maybe call "him" a name or two, I might ask "what the fuck was all that about? What happened there, what are you playing at you idiot?" etc. To me, talking to god is addressing yourself, addressing everything.
In terms of intelligent design, I don't believe that god ever decided to create anything at all. I believe that everything in existence is already god, was never created, but a manifestation of god. You could say that god is the "untouchable, undefinable, ungraspable (therefore "unprovable") centre of ourselves and everything, and the "us" that we are aware of and interact with / amongst ourselves, is the subjective side of god. A good way of putting it is in the words of, or to paraphrase Bill Hicks (I hate quoting other people but this is a good illustration of what I mean) that we are god subjectively experiencing itself (end paraphrase as this next bit is my own-->) No wonder we can't prove that god exists. We're too occupied being god. That's why I find the idea of proving god so funny. It can't be done because it's right under our noses to such an extent that to "prove" it simply involves knowing it.
I don't reject science, and it doesn't and never has conflicted with my beliefs. I've never come across anything scientific which is in conflict (and therefore challenges, within myself) my views.
