On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Andrew Bailey wrote:
>
>"If Gods existance was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt , tomorrow,
>how would that affect you?"
>
Well, I guess my response would be "What sort of god, and what sort of
proof?"
I wonder if part of the problem is how "god" should be defined? In
examining my own feelings on the matter, I have come to realize that I
personally feel outraged and angered by the idea that the biblical God
literally exists, and wants our obedience, love and worship, and will
judge us after we die.
Positing that that God does exist, I'd say that we owe him respect for
his power and artistic vision, and perhaps even some measure of
gratitude if he really does have the well-being of all of creation in
mind. But that's *it*. Obedience, to a moral code that is blatantly
unfair; a list of rules that he refuses to update or explain? No.
Love, for a completely absent parent that randomly distibutes
blessings and catastrophes? No. *Worship*? No *way*. [1] Judge us?
Well, I can't stop it if it's true, but I can deny that he has the
moral authority to do so based on his own actions as recorded in the
Bible/Quran.
But I've noticed that even people who are devout monotheists have
different takes on what God *is*. Some seem to feel that God is the
spirit of Universal Compassion/Unconditional Love, or Universal
Justice, or the Creative Force, or the Primal Lawgiver, or the Angry
and Avenging Spirit, or the Universe itself (or some or all of the
above combined). Other religions posit different entities for the
above different roles. And I personally would feel less strongly
about, say, proof that the universe has an external creator, with no
other attributes assumed as part of the proof.
So what exactly is proved to exist, and what form does that proof
take?
[1] I originally wrote "*Hell*, no.", but I figured that might provoke
a snarky response. :-)