Do you believe in a supernatural creator, God or gods of any sort?

[Bobbyj]

I think no... Even about books. Now more and more books about spirituality but without religion become popular

[Cattleman]

In "Forever Odd" (2005), Dean Koontz wrote:

"The less depth a belief system has, the greater the fervency with which its adherents embrace it. The most vociferous, the most fanatical are those whose cobbled faith is founded on the shakiest principles."

Personally, I am automatically suspicious of any belief system, be it religion, philosophy, or whatever, that relies primarily on 'revealed truth.' Who revealed it? How was it revealed? To whom was it revealed? Exactly what was revealed?

[Doulos]

The God, and gods that have been presented to me cannot explain the majestic universe or the differences between people sufficiently for me.

Why should s/he?
If there is a god, why would we all suddenly be entitled to answers?

Perhaps because He also gave us an intellect which questions. Though this may not 'entitle' us, if there is a creator God who made us with intellect one could reasonable ask why.

Good point though

[Robert Tulip]

This thread has been sitting on the edge of my conscience since Chris started it.

I do not believe in anything supernatural. Science is based on the premise of materialism, and there is no evidence to challenge scientifical materialism. So I am totally atheist as far as conventional claims of an entity who cannot be discovered by science. There is no such entity.

And yet I have a deep love for the myth of God, as a source of meaning and purpose and grace in human life. It is such a paradox.

How I view it is that we have to put together ideas that give us a vision of a goal for human life, of how we can cooperate for salvation. But salvation is another of those corrupted words. It does not mean going to heaven (which does not exist) but understanding how to improve and sustain human life on earth.

Even though I think Jesus Christ was invented as pure idea, I think he is the most brilliant genius of all literature. There was something about the time of Christ that inspired great thinking, asking if there was a messiah what would he be like. And Jesus is the answer. Pure love, uncompromising about truth against evil, a vision of good that has no historic rival. And an understanding of how humanity would have reacted - crucifixion - if such a man had actually lived.

Miracles are just parables, stories told to convey a hidden meaning. The entire concept of miracle is corrupt and stupid, except as symbol.

Spirit is how we relate to matter, through feeling and language. Spirit is not a material entity, but rather exists in human imagination. Yet this existence of spirit is real, because it provides the motive power for human freedom and action.

A thing exists as both description and entity. The description is spiritual, the entity is material. But we relate primarily to the description, the thing as it appears to us, rather than the thing as it is in itself.

And yet, the numinous, the thing in itself, is often held to be deeply spiritual. This is another paradox, that we can only relate to phenomena, but we must regard noumena as the ultimate reality, for an authentic spirituality. Sorry for the philosophy.

God is the idea that pulls everything together as the best possible vision of human salvation. Conventional faith replaces the reality of God with idols, conventional traditions that are convenient for community, but have gaping holes in terms of their coherence with observation and life.

My Bible study group is reading Paul's letter to the Romans. I enjoy the discussion, although I conceal my atheism as I prefer to concentrate on what we agree on. Paul says God is manifest in the things that are seen, but people are on a depraved path to destruction because they replace the reality of God with a lie. I wish it was possible to speak honestly about the merits of Christianity, in terms of how its inner essence presents a withering critique of its tradition. Jesus himself tells us he does not exist, when he says everything told to the public in the gospels is a parable.

[Cattleman]

Miracles are just parables, stories told to convey a hidden meaning. The entire concept of miracle is corrupt and stupid, except as symbol.

Maybe it depends on how you define a 'miracle.' Listen to the song "Ordinary Miracles" (I prefer the Sarah McLachian version).

Or maybe Robert Heinlein said it best in "Time Enough for Love - The Notebooks of Lazarus Long" (1973):

"The Shamans are forever yakking about their snake-oil 'miracles.' Give me the real McCoy - a pregnant woman."

[ant]

I think it's narrow-minded, short sighted, and haughty of materialists to think that there can be nothing else beyond the examination of a material world by our (limited) senses.
Also, to continue to beat to a pulp antiquated attempts to understand a Creator is nothing more than a demonstration of intellectual impotence.

I think atheists who sing their "We are sure we understand the nature of reality - materialism is all there is!" song are spiritually depressed creatures, afraid to admit their "intelligence" and understanding of nature by "logical" means is simply not enough. My god, some of our greatest minds have admitted to this, but we still continue to hear armchair scientists beat their chests, proclaiming that there is no god, and that anyone who believes is something greater is suffering from irrational thinking - HIGHLY, HIGHLY ARROGANT.

That's my opinion and thanks for respecting it.

[ant]

I guess you can say I'm agnostic. I'm open to the possibility of a supernatural creator. However, I don't think that humans would be able to understand this creator. I honestly don't understand why some people think they understand how this creator wants us to live and what "laws" s/he would like us to follow. I think that if this creator is real than s/he would be such a complex being that no mere human could possibly understand s/he's motives. I constantly tell my students that I think faith is a good thing but religion is not... this is just my opinion.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

What "motive," as you say, could their be other than an experiential one?

I do not believe a God would want to be some grand, cosmic puppeteer. Nor do I subscribe to the belief that humans are the only creation that is created "in his image."
If God created everything, then everything is his image.

If cows could write, then cows would describe their god in cow-like terms and attribute to him/her cow-like qualities. This is not difficult to understand.

I agree with your statement about faith vs religion.

[Doulos]

I guess you can say I'm agnostic. I'm open to the possibility of a supernatural creator. However, I don't think that humans would be able to understand this creator. I honestly don't understand why some people think they understand how this creator wants us to live and what "laws" s/he would like us to follow. I think that if this creator is real than s/he would be such a complex being that no mere human could possibly understand s/he's motives. I constantly tell my students that I think faith is a good thing but religion is not... this is just my opinion.

Thanks for the honest evaluation.

On your comment on, "how this creator wants us to live and what "laws" s/he would like us to follow" and on the related complexity of God issue:
Absolutely. No human logic or reasoning could understand God if God is truly the creator of all things.

What if God (in divine knowledge of humanity and our limits) chose to 'speak' and reveal himself? I think you'd still be 100% correct that we could not (fully) understand God's motives... but we would understand what God chose to reveal.

For the sake of transparency, I'm speaking from a biblical Christian perspective.

[Interbane]

No human logic or reasoning could understand God if God is truly the creator of all things.

I hear this often. What reasoning do you have to support this? Why is it not possible that if there is an omniscient being, he is mostly understandable? We could understand various aspects, yet still remain short of full comprehension as those aspects are infinite. We can understand the universe, even if we cannot have all of it in our minds at once. This claim appears non-sequitur.

I think the idea that a god would be unknowable is an unsupported excuse. I mean, it may be true, but nowhere is there good supportive reasoning for this claim. It's just thrown out there. Because it serves as an excellent means. The end that it supports is to keep the goal post of "god" out of reach. We cannot define nor know any part of god. This creates an extremely powerful immunization against future contrary reasoning. It is a defense mechanism for theism. In the pool of differentially selected ideas, a defense mechanism will survive to be included in your arsenal even if you aren't aware of what it is. Even if you have no good reason for it to be true.

If cows could write, then cows would describe their god in cow-like terms and attribute to him/her cow-like qualities. This is not difficult to understand.

It makes more sense to me that gods are created in the image of their believers, by their believers. Rather than being reflective of a multimorphous or infinitely redefinable god, it reflects the fact that a desire for an omniscient agent is a consequence of the organism having awareness of other agents and of causation. Of course, cows lack sufficient sentience, so they have no god of their own. Yet.

I think it's narrow-minded, short sighted, and haughty of materialists to think that there can be nothing else beyond the examination of a material world by our (limited) senses.

Ant, I think there could be something else beyond our examination of the material world. The difference between us is that even though I applaud this possibility, I do not accept it without justification. Arriving at conclusions without proper support is more common in our species than obesity. But since we are all guilty at one point or another, there is ubiquitous forgiveness for not having a supported conclusion. People throw out every freaking idea under the sun, and demand respect for the idea. Where is our intellectual honor?! Why do we believe things without the appropriate support?

If you're claiming something ant, I'm not against it. But by golly show me some support for your belief if you expect it to be assimilated. Otherwise, you are every bit as bad as those you criticize. The reason is, only the agnostic position is justified when we lack sufficient evidence to affirm or deny a conclusion.(that's both sides of the argument). You rail against those who deny a conclusion, yet you affirm the conclusion they deny. You're both wrong, and to criticize the other side is hypocritical.

On the other hand, there are arguments that support a non-agnostic position regarding immaterial claims. But the position they support(based on inductive reasoning) is the one you disagree with.

[Doulos]

No human logic or reasoning could understand God if God is truly the creator of all things.

I hear this often. What reasoning do you have to support this? Why is it not possible that if there is an omniscient being, he is mostly understandable? We could understand various aspects, yet still remain short of full comprehension as those aspects are infinite. We can understand the universe, even if we cannot have all of it in our minds at once. This claim appears non-sequitur.

I think the idea that a god would be unknowable is an unsupported excuse. I mean, it may be true, but nowhere is there good supportive reasoning for this claim. It's just thrown out there. Because it serves as an excellent means. The end that it supports is to keep the goal post of "god" out of reach. We cannot define nor know any part of god. This creates an extremely powerful immunization against future contrary reasoning. It is a defense mechanism for theism. In the pool of differentially selected ideas, a defense mechanism will survive to be included in your arsenal even if you aren't aware of what it is. Even if you have no good reason for it to be true.

It actually isn't my comment but Olivia22's. I understand it and echoed it though, so will give you my own personal understanding of the issue.

In essence, it rests upon the concept that God is infinite (or at least so close to that as to be indiscernible), and also the creator of all things.

In contrast, man is decidedly finite and limited.

To postulate that a finite creature would be able to fully comprehend infinity, much less an infinite being would be impossible almost by definition. As Olivia22 puts it, "I think that if this creator is real than s/he would be such a complex being that no mere human could possibly understand s/he's motives."

Note that neither of us is saying "unknowable" though. Olivia is talking about a creator's motivations, while I would assert that we simply could not know the fullness of God (what you term "full comprehension"). In essence I would agree with your comment on being able to 'know' God, but not know him fully.

You've also got bits of my, Ant's and possibly Olivia's post in this. Was that intentional or have you mixed up who was speaking?