Frenchy; Sorry if I mis-stated what you meant regarding no punishment by god for disbelief. But, it begs the question; "If you don't believe in god, and are, for example, homosexual, and see this as a natural thing, what if you doing this natural thing is, unbeknownst to you, something god objects to?" I don't think god cares, if he exists, whether someone is a homosexual, by-the-way, it's an example of a behaviour that can be seen as natural by many atheists but is seen as un-natural by some theists.
Paul's statement, to me, is doublethink. I take it you are familiar with 1984? Basically I find it very unsurprising that most cultures share basic taboos. These taboos would have evolved without a god in any developing culture, as they are required for a culture to develop. Concepts of property and the sanctity of human life, pair-bonds, etc., are things without which a culture is unstable. So Paul, to me, is saying;
"Whenever you see people doing what people would do even if there were no god, it proves that there is a god."
Sorry, it doesn't work for me!
You say;
"Do you mean to say that absence of proof for the theory of God makes belief in him illogical?"
Yes, that is what I think. And, if I may digress, I am VERY happy to accept the concept of spirituality. If you find god in the sunrise, and in the smile's of babies, or the subtle curve of your girlfriend's back, or a galloping horse, that is great. I find in these things such as these a sense of wonder, a sense of the other, a transcendence of the mundane. But I don't call it 'god', as I see no evidence of intelligence or personality, and I would use 'god' to define a divine being with intelligence and personality. I really object sometimes to the way certain theists (not you) try to corner the market in spirituality.
You argue with scriptual backing "There is evidently a purpose in the difficulty of finding God."
Very good arguement, but it is insubstansive IMO, as it doesn't answer what that purpose might be. As this difficulty unavoidably prevents some from knowing god, if there is one, it attacks the concept of god being caring if this were true.
As I see it, it is god's responsibility to make the running. He made us. It's his job.
Say I made little people and kept them in my back yard, and made sure that they could find evidence for them having evolved from cats, and made sure they could find no proof for my existence. Say I inspired individual little people to write books claiming (without any proof) to have details of me and my plan, and loads of other little people wrote other books claiming the same thing that I hadn't inspired.
Would it be reasonable for me to expect the little people to be responsible for finding out the truth that I had obscured?
I don't think so, but you're free to disagree. If there is a god, and he thinks it's reasonable, well, I'm shafted, but I must be true to me before I can be true to anything lese, and believing that god would act in an unreasonable fashion is something I cannot do and be true to myself.
You ask what's wrong with the word god.
Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura-Mazda, Qualetelotl(sp?), Coyote, Allah, the nameless Seikh concept of god, the Jew's YHWH, the modified version of this promulgated by Christianity, Thor, Loki, oh the list is endless. All of these are gods. There is as much proof for Loki as there is for YHWH. Then we have concepts of the divine, such as held by Buddists, new-age conceptualisations of god as 'Mother Nature', for want of a better word, diffuse concepts of a creative demi-urge.
God means so many things to so many people it is essentialy a meaningless word, but I think (and this is the only thing I can fault you on, as you seem to be very open minded and informed) when you say god you mean the Christian god. Thus, when you say god, you know what you mean, but I have to emphasise this is just a coincidence of space and time and genetics. You could have just celebrated the Hindu festival of lights if you'd been born elsewhere, and be a devotee of Krishna.
The fact you exclude other concepts of god and even have to ask what's wrong with the word god suggests you haven't considered, if your idea of god happens to be true, what happens to those born elsewhere raised with concepts of god they think are just as true as you think yours is.
This flips us back to the reality, that people living in ignorance of the truth about god are unavoidably done harm if there is such a thing as truth about god, and that thus, lack of proof of god is illogical if god cares.
Of course, if you are supporting the existence of a god that accepts all who look for it in whatever way, and gives those who don't have a chance to look for it another chance, then I think you have a lovely concept of god... but you still can't prove it. However, if you believe that, then me sincerely not believing in god and doing my best in life will do me no harm, as I'll get another chance.
Your advice is, essentially, to believe in god "JUST IN CASE", as you say "Self respect is not sacrificed by believing in God". DO you mean if I pretend to believe in god even though I don't just in case god will be happy with me. I think not!!!
I agree if there IS one, you do not sacrifice self-respect by belieiving.
But if there ISN'T, I think you do lose self respect by believing, and I cannot be true to god if I am not true to me by trading my self-respect for a comforting belief in a nice idea that is roughly what would have evolved as humanity rose from ignorance, even if there were no god.
Thank you for a very well considered and refreshing response.
Gyles
(edited for typos)
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
