“Seraphim23”:
I think you’re kind of on the right track. It seems that you have some form of belief in God but not in the classical, orthodox, gothic-like “status quo” type of god that most people have believed in. People like to take God and sort of dress him up like some kind of doll, give him a specific name (Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah), and relate things that he is supposed to have said or commanded through certain prophets – like some kind of celestial “pet” conjured up to suit the cultural, anthropological phenomena of human development.
I, for one, have what I like to call the “A-B-C” belief regarding God. It is my personal take on the concept of God, as follows:
(A) There is NO God, there could not be, and everything that exists is solely from the processes of higher-order quantum physics and biological evolution; or,
(B) There IS, in fact, a divine God, and His name is so-and-so, and he created everything exactly according to the Bible book of Genesis, and he said such-and-such and this-and-that, and if we don’t follow exactly what he commanded in this Scripture and that Scripture, then such-and-such will happen to us and our future will ultimately be such-and-such (i.e., not very good, and not very long); . . . . OR,the following scenario – which is actually what I myself believe:
(C) There seems to be, in all probability, some kind of process which has the nature of “intelligent design,” BUT which does not definitively fit into the above options (A) or (B) in that the nature of the existence of such would logically be, in all probability, completely foreign and transcendent to the realm of any current theological or even empirical understanding. In other words, there is likely some form of “entity,” the existence of which being that which is the process of the origin of all that is known to exist. Moreover, such “entity” of process is completely and absolutely different than any belief or system of belief of any person or group.
I think it seems reasonable and plausible to ascribe to the above option (C) when you consider how people who were considered the most intelligent and intuitive people of their time attempted to grapple with fundamental scientific concepts, such as light, electricity, gravity, and even the most basic cosmological understand of the nature of stars, planets, and our relative position in the universe. Don’t forget, in pre-medieval times respected scientists actually believed that light was something that emanated from a person’s eye toward the object of focus and bounced back to convey vision into the eye, and also, around the earlier part of the 1900s, even the renowned theoretical physicist Albert Einstein was not aware of any galaxies other than our own (none had yet been discovered). And quantum physicists are still grappling with gravity (particle or wave?), not to mention dark matter and dark energy.
Thus, I personally believe that in projecting current human understanding toward the nature of that which is the ultimate causation and engineering of all that is known to exist, there is probably an ultimate “uncertainty principle” in that it would seem to be something which would continue to elude our understanding indefinitely.