3 Theories Of Everything by Ellis Potter

quote:

---

If by concrete you mean material

---

No, I mean as opposed to abstract.

quote:

---

I would argue that there was at one time Jesus Christ as a concrete entity and when He rose, the Body of Christ or the Church became the resident of the Spirit as concrete entity

---

I would argue that he did not rise. Jesus the man was a concrete entity, but that man is dead, gone and so obscured that historians despair of finding the truth about him.

Perhaps you are an atheist because you cannot fathom God as a concrete entity.Personally I am much more comfortable with the idea of a Creator of all seen and unseen than I am with Quantum mechanics and Physics trying to configure an objective truth concerning the origin of the universe. Perhaps you are more evidence based and logical than I am and see no need for consideration of a Creator for which there likely never be evidence.

quote:

---

Perhaps you are an atheist because you cannot fathom God as a concrete entity.

---

No.

quote:

---

Personally I am much more comfortable with the idea of a Creator of all seen and unseen than I am with Quantum mechanics and Physics trying to configure an objective truth concerning the origin of the universe. Perhaps you are more evidence based and logical than I am and see no need for consideration of a Creator for which there likely never be evidence.

---

Religious claims to exclusive truth are ten-a-penny. At least science is honestly trying to understand reality, rather than to (at best) force fit it to pre-conceived ideas.

So am I but my comfort level has nothing to do with what's true.

quote:

---

Perhaps you are an atheist because you cannot fathom God as a concrete entity.

---

As I also said, Perhaps you are more evidence based and logical than I am and see no need for consideration of a Creator for which there likely never be evidence. My perception of a Creator is personal while yours is likely hypothetical. Granted that is true, but I perceive science as trying to define reality based only on what it has to work with. There is nothing personal about science. And your criteria is evidence and wherever that evidence leads. You have no need for God so why make it personal? (and I know that you will tell me yet again that you *do* have a desire to seek truth and if it be God then GREAT, but I see no desire to take any leaps of faith on your part. You sit back in the Lab and compare statistics.

quote:

---

As I also said, Perhaps you are more evidence based and logical than I am and see no need for consideration of a Creator for which there likely never be evidence. My perception of a Creator is personal while yours is likely hypothetical.

---

I do have other reasons, such as the incoherence of Christianity.As for your personal reasons I will point out that any have similar reasons and come to beliefs significantly different from yours. Such reasons are clearly not reliable guides to the truth.

quote:

---

Granted that is true, but I perceive science as trying to define reality based only on what it has to work with. There is nothing personal about science.

---

We have to work with what we have. And science, unlike apologetics, has appropriate modesty (even if some practitioners fall short) and a good deal of internal criticism and correction.

You yourself haven't taken any "leap of faith". You've stuck with the fairy tales that you learned as a child. A leap of faith would be to discard them and start fresh. Try a whole new set of fairy tales. Become a Raelian.

Interesting.
RaelianismThe reason that I "stick" with my childhood fairy tales, which I never adapted until I was over 30, by the way is because I have experienced the supernatural. Once you have such an observational and/or participatory encounter you can never again go back to square one.And I will admit for the sake of argument that I want God as taught by apologists
and modern tradition to actually be real. I likely suffer from confirmation bias.

So have I. Only I call it "unknown". And yet I did.

I cant understand why you threw away the God you thought you knew. I would be scared to death of letting go of mine. Its a bit like a bird leaving the nest. Why leave home? You were right in that I fit the profile of the older son. And I too would be mad at a little brother who spent half of Dads stuff and then had the audacity to come home and mooch off of my share.

All birds leave home.

You are not understanding the metaphor. Where is "home" to God?I would say that it is everywhere. Thus metaphorically the only way that one could "leave home" is to deny the Spirit. Decide in their own mind and spirit that they desired to be autonomous---separate from Gods nagging still small voice.

There's plenty personal things about science - if you're inclined to feel them.But, more to the point, you're right - science is about defining reality; if you use your personal opinions to affect "the definition of reality" - then you're not really defining reality, are you?At that point... you're simply making yourself feel better and screw "defining reality."Which has it's place.But "defining reality" also has it's place.

That's a ridiculous concept. In any case, it isn't God who's leaving home, so if He did have a home it would be irrelevant to the metaphor.

The point is that Gods "home" is everywhere so we really never leave the nest unless we do so mentally. Which I would argue is UN-necessary.