JT
You write beautifully and I always enjoy reading your posts but I wonder if sometimes you look for depth and meaning when there is none. Can you not concede that somtimes the universe is just as we perceive it? Why always try to shoehorn an interpretation into a statement or a meaning into a picture? Square peg, round hole and all that. When Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life" why not simply take him at his word? (and challenge it)
The watchtower clouded my mind for decades by hiding reality behind a myriad of books, magazines and lectures. A billion obfuscating words when just a few short ones would have sufficed. I prefer things to be clear, plain and simple.
DD
You quote only a snippet of my post and, unless I'm mistaken, use it out of context. You asked me "What is that way?", but I had already explained it. If there is no evidence, I have no basis for belief. Wonder? Yes. Suspicions and leanings? Sure. Belief? No.
How do I know that pixies and elves don't live at the bottom of my garden? How do I know that Moonmen aren't plotting to takeover the world from their lunar base? The same way that I know a super-intelligent deity doesn't exist 'up there somewhere'. If you saw a newborn baby would you conclude [a] that it had a human mum & dad or [b] it had a human mum and a 'spiritual', not of this world, alien, ethereal father who conceived it via some nebulous spirit 'tool' of his?[my original post]
Shining One
This argument has been doing the rounds for over 60 years and yes, it was started by Lewis, he calls it the Trilemma. He lived as an atheist until well into his life when he eventually turned to Christianity - weird huh?!
Lewis said that the problem with Jesus is to reconcile two facets of his character - "the almost generally admitted depth and sanity of his moral teaching' and 'the quite appalling nature of the Man's theological remarks." Lewis said these are "claims which, if not true are those of a megalomaniac compared with which Hitler was the most sane and humble of men."