anglican1549

But an invisible horse is referencing a thing simply without the accidents of visibility, but a finite thing nevertheless.

You're still trapped in a category Christians (or any traditional Theists) don't believe about God. We're asserting X, you're attacking Y.

"God throws a few temper tantrums in the Old Testament."

Clearly there are descriptions of God's kindled wrath that is admittedly frightful and overwhelming. Do these eruptions of anger and fury and wrath somehow militate against a standard above or outside God Himself? What's the origin of this standard? How does it (or can it?) apply to Him? Objections, it seems, are either rooted in taste ("I prefer this because of something about my personal predilections.") or in an understanding of the world as it is or ought to be ("Reason clearly shows that...")

"Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in." You very well might not believe in such a God. But what psychology is at work here? I can't read your mind, but if you indeed resist such a notion of a God who can erupt in wrath or even treasure up wrath against anyone who rejects Him, would this rejection be a product of mere taste? Should things of ultimate importance be considered on something as (I would consider) fickle as taste?

My point of bringing up the idea of God's love in the context of the Bible wasn't meant to say you accepted the text as true or inspired, only that if we are objecting to the historical Christian concept of God, we should at least try to deal with the source of its self-understanding since the defects of Christianity stems either from its faithfulness to its sources or its deviation from its sources.

"I can only maybe accept that there was a creator." -- Happy to hear you are not out and out closed out to the idea of a Creator. "Everything else is just pure speculation," which is an interesting claim in itself, but it seems to be an implicit admission that the hard work of metaphysics is an indispensable part of our dialogue. Your rejection of Christian scripture may be warranted, but I'd be curious as to how you concluded it is a "contradictory pseudo-history combined with fiction." Is this based on your own reading? You don't owe me an explanation, but so much seems to hang on this point. Even if it were demonstrably not a hodge-podge mess of history, fiction, poetry, and teaching, would that even sway your seeming pre-commitment to the words you wrote: "Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in?"

"Well if he was right in front of me I would obviously admit I was wrong." -- that seems to be the a realistic response. Scripture certainly paints that picture.

"If he cares as much as you say I'm sure he'd be pretty upset at me. At that point he would either have to understand where I was coming from, or send me to hell." -- An infinitely wise God would clearly understand your own mind on this. The ultimate question is whether hell is ever justified even in the case of those who claim a degree of ignorance? That's another discussion, but I am glad you are thinking about it at least hypothetically.

"Either way, I'm willing to take that risk." -- Blaise Pascal would love to discuss with you what constitutes a rational risk on this count. Risk-taking is a good thing, wouldn't you agree, if it is eminently grounded in reason?

Thank you so much for this exchange. I don't have all the answers, but like you I am happy to hang my hat on anything that has the ring of truth. I am openly a traditional, classical Christian, but I'm always willing to dialogue and calibrate my beliefs in the light of the Truth, the Good, and the Beautiful.

"God is often depicted as moody and overly worried about what we think of him."

Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing.

"Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think?

The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow?

I'm asking these questions (not attacking! I value your response!) because whenever we go into the "my personal belief is..." it seems prudent to examine whether such beliefs have rational warrant, or are they simply another way of wishing the world worked that way?

"Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't?

By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?

Why does insecurity come into play? Couldn't there be other reasons for God being adamant about what a person believes (i.e., worships)? What if man's nature really is best nurtured by and finds its completion in (his telos) the Being called God?

If your kids insist on eating cotton candy (which works against their health) amid a veritable feast (that is delightful and nutritious), wouldn't your ire be justified?

It certainly is reasonable to look for an archetype for what we consider transcendent acts and qualities. Even the most ardent atheist generally is moved by acts of mercy, heroics, sacrifice, and unmerited love.

His chosen framework cannot properly and consistently account for these things, perhaps the best he can do is proffer a narrative about bio-chemical impulses and evolutionary advantage -- but the transcendent "feel" at the end of the day seems no more than an illusion of nature.

Your epistemology and categories are already flawed, as if there's an analogy between a thing (like a horse) and the Ground of Being (classically called "God"). God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. If you think classical theism posits deity the same way people posit horses, of course you'll want "evidence" that is empirical.

So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? The premise ("There is a God") might not be true, but an a priori exclusion of such a being seems no more based on logic than the counter claim. What is helpful, I think, is if by looking through those lenses we see if God gives the world more explanatory power than by not looking through those lenses.