You are basing your reason on a lack of evidence, but how you know there is a lack of evidence when you cannot comprehend God.
I take from that you think that first I develop some sort of mental picture of God and give him attributes and then armed with my mental picture and comprehension of God I then seek evidence that fits the mental picture.
So I form this mental picture,as no doubt the ancients did, where I give my made up God attributes of power to do anything and say this God could have created the universe and I observe the universe is there I therefore have my evidence that God exists....?
Or do you suggest I read scriptures where someone else presents their comprehension of God, no less imagined and no less made up, and happily and uncritically accept their concept that God created the Universe and armed with their version observe the universe is there and say I have my evidence.
I can imagine that approach in court.
"Your Honor we can imagine that whoever committed the robbery would look a sneaky type and if you look at the defendant he is certainly a very sneaky type and therefore guilty".
Or is my parallel somehow different?
Or is it like profiling?
God must be powerful and creative and being powerful and creative he could create the universe ...I now have my evidence?
Jan perhaps you have fallen victim to the second approach I entertained above.
You read a scripture which describes God as this and that and you are swayed by that made up work, (and be clear it is made up and issues from the mind of a man with no evidence that his work was influenced by God or the bottle, but I would pick the bottle because folk can say strange stuff when out of it,) and armed with a notion you found in an ancient work, you seek and declare the universe is clear evidence of God, the creator described in the book you just read.
That can work for you Jan and that is OK but I see grave flaws in that approach.
Then there is the question 'what are you prepared to accept as evidence of God?'
Then there is the question 'what are you prepared to accept as evidence of God?' If you cannot answer that question, what is the point of concluding there is no evidence, then believing you have a point?
Me I observe the Universe and say I find no evidence suggestive of anything and can happily believe it was always here needing no explanation of creation.
And of course this approach does not even need a big bang.
But someone then presents the big bang theory in an effort to explain the observations.
Then there is the question 'what are you prepared to accept as evidence of God?'
How can I define what evidence I would accept Jan when as you point out I have no comprehension of God.
However the onus is not upon me to define acceptable evidence.
You prosecute the case for the existence of God the burden of proof is with you, it is up to you not me to present evidence and to make sure that evidence proves what's er it is that you wish to prove.
You ask what do I want my reply is simply is what have you got.
Is there anything in my approach that is unreasonable.
The only rational position to consider is that you cannot comprehend God, so as far as you're aware, God does not exist.
Well that may seem rational to you Jan that you draw a conclusion that as I can't comprehend God, which I hasten to point out is no more than an irrelevant and unsupported belief, that it is because of that flawed approach I can not rationally conclude God does not exist.
I can conclude God does not exist because the concept appears out of scriptures which offer no evidence that they hold any status higher than fictional works written by ancient folk who explained a world they did not understand by resorting to inventing Gods.
Men created God..God did not create men....and unfortunately Jan that is so far what the evidence tells us very clearly.
Apologies for coming across as angry. I meant it to come across as stern, but not angry.
I joyfully accept your apology but point out being stern will lend no authority or credibility to your argument.
It is not a conclusion I reached,
I am sorry to have to call upon you to be correct but it is indeed a conclusion that you have reached.
For example walking is a physical act. It is systematic, methodological, mathematical, logical, and all that stuff. But once you can walk, you don't need to recall that. You just up and go. What you do with this physical capability, is beyond the function itself.
A
I lost the ability to walk properly, such that after the operation on my back I did I'm fact have to learn again how to walk.
And I think many folk find themselves in that situation.
So if you don't take to really try and understand what is meant by 'God', you will be just like the lazy fat kid who can't understand why he is not an Olympic champion. After all, he really wanted to be one.
Jan I have tried and there was a time I thought there was something to it.
Getting personal I believe there was a time where I was where you are now.
So why did I give up on the concept?
In truth I could see that I had become delusional and that there was absolutely no evidence of the existence of any God.
And that the scriptures had been written by, although well meaning, folk who were delusional.
I formed a belief that to use a God to explain things was an abdication of accepting personal responsibility and avoid really thinking for myself.
I feel like a veil of confusion was lifted such that I could function better having thrown off delusion and unsupportable superstitious beliefs.
And having been through it Jan that is why I engage here.
Out of anyone who currently believes I see you as the only one who may work it out like I did and escape the delusion, and I am not trying to be unkind it is what it is and having been there can call it delusion and I am not trying to pull an adhom on you.
It is my belief you will one day come out on the other side and understand what I say to you.
But I believe you will be better, the morals stick, the peace remains, you will understand what the scripture writers were trying to do.
It will be better when you get there it is a state of bliss that I can only hint about..its a relief, a deep exhale, a knowing that you have arrived.
You know how you feel now..even better than that.
Then please learn something, because if you become exposed to what I got exposed to, at the very least you would have respect for this subject matter.
I respect the attempt and of course it is a helpful stepping stone to full understanding but a time comes where one needs to use what you learn and grow even further its sort of learning to walk by yourself and confidently.
You've never talked about God (in this forum at least), so you have yet to fail.
I was referring to my failure to always present as respectful just because I feel that I am always respectful I can not ignore that others can interprets my actions as lacking respect so I fail to make sure my respect is not just internal but I show to the world that I take the time to demonstrate respect.
Alex