response

this post seems messy and disjointed because it is in response to several responses to a previous post.

i think i get what ryan means about kierkegaard and christianity being real for you.

my goal is to prove or disprove god, using reason. if god is proven to exist, although i presently say i will dutifully submit to logic and give god due credit, i must admit i will struggle with making god real in my life; what difference will god's being make on a persons life in real terms, especially if they were a strong practitioner of, as ryan mentioned, human, secular love?

and another can of worms: it will be difficult reconciling several aspects of christianity such as god's jealousy and pride and insistence on sending non believers to eternal damnation.

in the light of all this, does the duty to logic still hold? im leaning towards yes.

***

about proof for god: one should not and indeed cannot take the bible as a starting point to prove the bible: the argument becomes circular, ie 'the bible is true because the bible, which is true, tells me the bible is true".

we need to step out of the bubble, out of the truth framework the bible has constructed. the premise for god needs to come from a source that Doesnt claim gods presence in the first place.

its like the matrix. or plato's cave. one needs to step out of the matrix/cave to gain a clearer picture of reality, before making a sound and reasoned judgement on the nature of the universe. (apologies, i know plato's cave is slightly out of context here)

***

about love, sin and free will: is free choice to believe really a free choice? granted, we have the choice when we are here on earth, but with eternal damnation in a lake of fire and brimstone, "in the place where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched", as a disincentive, id say we arent really free are we.

also, there is a lack of proof supplied by god in the first place. why does he hide in the shadows, when he could just give evidence of his existence, and let people choose from there whether they want to be his? is un-informed choice really free choice?

does god love us so much that he is prepared to look beyond us not worshipping him, and spare us from hell? or does he love himself more? he says clearly that non believers will burn. even though he sent jesus to die for us.

what about sin? i will say, the concept of sin has probably done a lot of good for human behaviour insofar as it governs human-human relations. when you reach the greatest commandment, "worship the lord your god with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might", and you consider that, i paraphrase, "all work for man should be for god", and also consider the generational sin of adam and eve, it gets really tricky.

if i do not live my life to glorify god but to glorify valuable human life, is that sin? in gods eyes, yes, it is. so sinful a travesty is it, in fact, that one could spend eternity in fire and brimstone for it.

this is not an atheist rant. im searching, and i admit i struggle with the above, but the duty to logic still holds. this is a real issue about people that needs to be seriously addressed, not brushed off with the sunday school answer of: "for my ways are higher than your ways".