I had a thought the other day.
If God did exist he must have his reasons for not being in our faces about his existence. I think we can all agree on that.
Some people say they have found God, others say that there is no way of finding him and others say hes not real. For those who say hes not real its generally because they cannot prove his existance logically at present. Which I always thought was fine, (Infact I still do) but if there is a fair and loving God do you think it fair that the smarter you are the more likely it is that you will find God, does a smart person make a nice person? Id say not.
Basically what Im saying is, if there is a God, its very possible that we cannot prove his existance for this reason.
God and intelligence level, ROFL this could whip up into a fair bloody argument.
I think finding God is more about ones ability to think abstractly than intelligence. Social communion is more applicable too. There are some pretty dumb people that are quite secure in their knowledge of God. Then there are highly intelligent folks the same way. Folks that find God/s tend to be conservative in nature or maybe very private and shy in certain ways.
Though it may seem like it, I’m not trying to draw parallels between intelect and God. Just saying that if there is a fair or loving God, whatever, that it would make sense that he would either make it so obvious that everyone could fathom his existance. (We know this is not the case) Or he would make it so that no one no matter how clever would be able to find him using their head. Otherwise it would create an unfair advantage to those who were smarter.
I agree with you that belife in God is an abstract matter. Or rather a spiritual matter I would personally call it. This is the point im trying to demonstrate in fact.
A fair and loving parent is not going to treat all of their children equally, no matter how hard they try. Each child is different and must be treated different. Some kids need a lot of hand holding others do not. A god would know that some humans need it/him and some humans do not. As a parent we are not concerned with our children knowing who we are as a person, we are just concerned with getting them raised. A god with alot on their hands is going to be a bit more stretched than the average parent and so will have to seem be a wee bit more harsh or cold. This does not mean the God does not love all it just means that perhaps if you don’t know god/s you don’t need to know God/s.
No but being fair would mean that he would not offer an advantage to those slightly smarter than most.
Exactly what makes you think its an advantage either way? If a parent helps a needy child more than the independent child is that giving the needy child an advantage? No not at all, if anything it is more like equaling things.
My take is the God I love is the ‘ultimate’ Father. Wherein He finds favor in a more devout believer, His love is equal for all people on this earth. High IQ or not, caring or not, highly sinful or not (in His eyes). This involves the living for the dead who have finished sowing their deeds, will wait for the White Throne Judgement.
It still just seems like believing in the easter bunny to me. Too big a leap. Nice idea, but not very realistic… to me.
We are not talking about how needy they are, but how clever they are. If a parent rewards their clever child and not the stupid one where is the fairness in that?
All religious people certainly are not stupid. In fact, some of them are extremely intelligent. But it’s pretty much undeniable that the stupider a person is, the more likely that person is to believe in some sort of god.
This board contains ample evidence for this.
How do you know the stupid child does not get a reward? If we are talking Gods then why presume that the stupid child is doomed to no reward? A clever child may get rewards in public but, that does not mean the stupid child is not rewarded in private.
Why can’t an intelligent human be needy? Clever does not mean one is not needy. Sometimes the most insecure people are the ones with the higher intelligence. A god would not have to present itself to those that do not need the security of a god. Why would it? That does not mean the God loves those people less it just means it realizes there is not a need to hold their hand. Its not an unfair thing to do and it does not give advantage. It just means the God recognizes the truth of the person’s personality and gives them thier independence. To hold the hand of one that is capable of indepence would be unfair, would it not? To know there is a God and you have no need of knowing it, would that not hinder a growth? It seems to me it would. It would be the equivelent of punishing a child for being different than its sibling. It would be the equivilent of making a child play with a doll when it would rather play with a truck. If one does not need a God, then a god would not present itself in anyway shape or form, if it truly is a just, fair and loving God.
I found a shrew. The evidence is visible, an object.
There is DEFINITELY no shrewness in the object, the object [the shrew] never says that it is a shrew, but, because people can see it, and because I said its a shrew, then we all agreed on that, we then believe it’s proven that it’s a shrew.
This provenness, the style and essence of human proof, is an agreement between large numbers of men, whom all tend to copy eachother with styles of association and terms. Perception is based on sensation. When a person feels “God”, essentailly, even if not in a visual way, it is equal or par to a sensation of a shrew, in its personal validity, because a visual sense is still a feeling, a subjectivity, an inner process of life’s mind.
We don’t really see heat, but we can feel it. The feeling of the heat, causing another to feel it, would be prooving that to them. This system of sense-association with images and with terms, is the foundation of the essential sensations, which some people call “God”. Their sensation itself does not physically say “I am God” by itself, in the same way that the waters of the ocean do not say verbally “I am wet”, but, man places terms on these sensations anyways. That is the name, but, the feeling of what “God” essentially is, that is personal experience and feeling, like in any other case.
In the same way that it is possible for a person to feel and see water without calling it water or believing that it is water [for a perfect example of this, they are constantly being touched by water-vapor in the air, but they do not say or call it water, and do not essentailly feel like there is water in the air], it is also possible for a person to be directly effected by the essence behind the term “God” every day, without calling it “God”, without feeling like it is “God” and without saying that it is “God”.
It may be constantly talking to you, constantly proving itself, constantly dealing with you and constantly actuating activity, but you do not call it “God” and instead may consider it as a literal part of your own mind, or perhaps consider it a literal part of the world, instead of seeing it as a separate living individual. You could, as an experiment and as a test, pray. Ignore all preconceptions until that moment, not expecting any one specific or pre-judged ideal result. Just pray and watch your own feelings and life. Try to talk to it, to the “God” everywhere, and not even call it “God”, but, see if you can find any substantial results from interacting with it. Personal effort and tests would bare much more results than argument and idle talk.
I cant agree with that at all. I know many people who are stupid atheists. I think we could all come up with a few in our own minds
Bullshit
Did anyone read my last reply?
I was describing the process of terms, and their foundation as a feeling which is not literally the term. It’s possible to find the God-sensation without finding the God-object. First-hand experience, it’s quite possible, to feel what the other persons would call “God”.
You cannot prove the objective existence of something with subjective evidence; a consensual hallucination is a hallucination all the same. While it is true that it is conceivable that one could experience god without recognizing it as god, (In which case those that do recognize it as god would be the less deluded) its also equally possible that multiple similar but unrelated subjective experiences could be correlated, whether by a mistake or a subconscious want for self-proof, (the exact reason is irrelevant) and in that way form the illusion of a connection where none exists.
If two people, in the depths of hypothermia, feel a sort of heat come on as their bodies go numb, is the room getting warmer? The people in question could discuss it all they wished, (though their condition might make it difficult) they might even arrive at the conclusion that the room is indeed getting warmer. Just because two people have a similar subjective experience, any may also go as far as to identify it as the same, common, and objective thing, it does not mean that it actually exists.
Did your post start with the assumption that proof and existence are literally real/valid?
The foundations of the statements must be careful not to undermine themselves… 
Yes ,it does 
[size=85]Sorry RC but, you walked into it. Stupider is improper.[/size] =D>
God loves cake too!
Really What flavor? 