Hi Rawe!
Here are a few quotes from your post that seemed to me to fit these two categories, first the self-reflection...
Okay then, lets examine them :)
"Christ has always been my lifeline. Doubts that I have ever had, have always brought me back to Him. Originally mainly from what He taught; now from what He teaches and speaks. (present tense) I do not believe He is real. I knowthat He is.".... tec
I was particularily struck by saying he speaks to you in the present tense. I assume you don't mean you're literally hearing voices.
Not voices, no. But I do hear His voice. Not as in with audible ears, but His distinct voice, in spirit, within me. Sometimes in words, sometimes in reminders of scripture that help me to see something He is trying to tell me; sometimes in images or reminders of a known event that will also help me see something; sometimes just in understanding granted.
It seems more like you're saying his teaching resonate with your life in the here and now. Is that what you mean?
This is also true, and came originally, but it is in addition to His voice.
Also the assertive phase "I know" speaks to internal knowledge and certainty.
Yes, true. But someone who knows something, even externally, can state I know... right? There is another reason i speak in personal means... and that is so that others do not think that I am speaking for or judging them. So it is sometimes for others (easier for them to take or leave it, or apply it personally only if they so choose to do so).
If my theory is correct, for you to deny the existence of God at this point, would be to deny your own existence.
I'm not sure how that makes sense? I could deny the existence of God, without denying my own existence. It would not be honest of me anymore, to do so. But I can entertain the theory for arguments sake, so as to see something from another pov.
Given that, atheism is simply not going to be rationale in this context.
True, atheism is not rational for me. But I'm not sure that connects to the above thought.
On the inability to objectively measure the existence of God...
"One person cannot prove to another person that there is God. That sort of imperical proof that non-beleivers are asking for. Because you cannot prove the spiritual with tools meant to measure the physical. You have to use different tools."... tec
On the surface it looks like a simple acknowledgement that settling the question of the existence of Pluto is a different task than that for God. Adding the bit about "different tools" and "spiritual tools" is interesting. Some given to thinking in terms of the concrete and literal would simply say these phrases have no real meaning.
It is different... but I think the concept is the same. Pluto existed even before the tools (those that helped create theories, due to new evidence arising) helped man to discover and see it, concretely. Germs existed even before the tools came along to help us prove their existence.
(I admit that I don't know much about our discovery or theorizing of Pluto to know whether my analogy of that one is correct or not)
But to me it more indicates a struggle with trying to express something you know, in a near absolute sense, yet cannot be seperated from yourself as an individual.
This is very close. I was very excited that you understood... except for the last bit that i bolded, lol.
It can totally be separated from me. But it is a struggle to express something that we do not have the words to express... and we do not often have the words to express something that we have not yet measured, physically. That is why we have the physical, to help explain the spiritual... and why so much is explained in analogy, metaphor, parable. Or sometimes a 'primitive' description that we might think is superstitious nonsense now, but is someone trying to explain a complex topic with the words and understandings of a previous time.
Like 'putting on and taking off the flesh'... (paul's terms in the bible)... describes moving from the physical to the spritual; or matter to energy... and even those descriptions are not yet accurate because we don't have the proper scientific evidence/tools/words.
Like trying to explain how HIV moves through the body, using the language of two thousand years ago. Very specific words are missing. Molecules. DNA. Virus. Immune system. White blood cells. Cells, themselves, lol. And whatever else goes into our current scientific language that would be needed to understand.
One of the differences that strikes me between believers and non-believers is the degree of self-knowledge. Many believers are certain, they know with little doubt, God exists. Non-believers in almost every case I have observed will say, that they are not certain it can be proven God does not exist.
Yes, often this is the case.
Lastly, the rational mind...
"But other people lose faith, or set their faith aside, because they do not like what God is (or is not) doing, according to what man has taught them about God. So usually, it is in a false god that they have lost their faith." ... tec
Some non-believers might jump at statements like this, as if the conclusion you've reached misses the obvious -- namely that God does not exist -- but even worse it imputes bad motive on the non-believer. But I see this differently.
Thank you for not taking offense, as I meant none. And in my original post, I did also say: Some people have no faith because they see no evidence for God.
I see this as the believing mind struggling to understand what is essentially a non-rational concept. If you know that God exists, why then do others not believe?
I don't think it is a struggle, and I don't tend to think that way, though I can see some reasons that other do not believe, as stated. But there could well be reasons that others do not believe. It may be rational for someone to not believe, personally, until they have or have seen some evidence that they are willing to accept.
That does not mean God does not exist. It just means that they are not going to believe He exists without acceptable evidence. That is not irrational. I do think it is irrational to state that just because you (you in general, not you specifically) have not seen evidence, that no one has seen evidence.
This can be made all the more confusing when you meet and interact with non-believers, many of whom you'll discover think and act in much the same way as believers, have the same range of likes, dislikes and morals, etc.
It can be for some. I do not find it to be confusing at all though. Some do, by nature, the things required by the law (of love), regardless of their belief or non-belief.
The human mind is constantly seeking to be rational. To make sense of the world around it. For example where your optic nerve connects to the back of your eye it creates two blind spots in your field of vision. But you don't notice them, because your mind simply fills in the void.
That is very cool, thanks. I did not know that.
Other examples of this occur where one is deprived of good information to the senses. You'll see something off in the distance, but not really well enough to recognize it, your mind will just make something up until you get closer to the object. In this context your believing mind is forcing you to come to some conclusion that remains rational. If the non-existence of God is non-rational it must be rejected.
Also interesting, and I hear what you are saying. Peopel do not (tend to) purposely believe in the irrational.
Peace to you,
tammy
