Replies

The creationists believe it is the God of the Bible; I don't. I think it is an unknown or unknowable entity (or entities).

If you say so. I just don't see the point. However, and again, how does that belief change your life in any way?

Sorry, I just don't understand your questions. You don't see the point of my belief? And you want to know how my belief changes my life in any way? Those are really weird questions.

I believe in the theory of Intelligent Design because it seems obvious to me that someone designed it all. Why do you think it's pointless for me to believe that? Because I don't give the Intelligent Designer a name, like God? If it will make you feel better, I can call the Intelligent Designer God. There. Feel better? I just don't think he's the God of the Bible. God is unknowable.

How does my belief change my life in any way? I'm aware that God created it all. I also see where God failed. Not only did he create beautiful things, but he also created death and disease and pain and suffering. So, along with the beautiful side of life, there's also an exceedingly ugly part. And that is where God failed. My belief just makes me conscious of a positive/negative God, a God who is both capable of good and evil.

Not only did he create beautiful things, but he also created death and disease and pain and suffering. So, along with the beautiful side of life, there's also an exceedingly ugly part. And that is where God failed.

A better hypothesis: the evidence indicates that genetic engineering and re-engineering were a common thing in the recent past of our planet, and that more than one pair of hands were involved in it. It appears obvious to me that the being who created humans and cats and the being who created biting flies, mosquitos, ticks, and chiggers, were not the same being. The other thing which appears obvious to me is that God, while omnipotent within his own spiritual realm, has limited powers within the physical realm which we inhabit.

My belief just makes me conscious of a positive/negative God, a God who is both capable of good and evil.

What you seem to be believing borders on or intrudes upon Dualism. Read C.S. Lewis on the subject (in Mere Christianity in the chapter "The Invasion"), and he'll provide you with more to chew on than most who post here.

On a thread a few months ago, The rise of neo-paganism I tried my hand at appending to C.S. Lewis my own humble views on the subject where I addressed another comment similar to this of yours --

At that thread I concluded my comments:

At the end, Lewis describes supernaturally what we see in the natural world. Just as we see natural and man-made parasitics accompany all work or potential for work in the well studied science of thermodynamics, Lewis said this about the bad force.

Put it more simply still. To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent.... The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things -- resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself. That is why Dualism, in a strict sense, will not work.

I'll try to tailor my response to your declaration with this suggestion.
Combine God's potential with His granting free will. Then consider that granting as having been done so as to similarly unfetter the potential of His highest creatures.
This may provide you at least another perspective to view your considerations. Do that, and gain an understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, and you may reconsider your assessment of what you call failures. I see those "failures" as consequences of tangible existence, creation if you will, arising out of The Potential.

Now, for someone such as yourself, who finds failure in practices that do not measure up to your ideals (which, from what I garner, is that perfection must be perfect), this may indeed be a futile invitation. However, there is always the chance that you'll find some value in my view -- and I wanted to offer you that chance -- that it may be more a matter of us mere mortals misunderstanding perfection.

medved, I alerted you because I saw that you responded to pointy's same sentence. Perhaps you understand my invoking of thermodynamics here more than others and can add something.