It doesn't require much imagination, to see that there is an explanation for this .. something greater than ourselves, that just "is" .. isn't born and doesn't die.
No, it doesn't, but does take some mental discipline to not call it a god, which I consider a terrible detour for Abrahamic theists. Once that something greater is removed from the cosmos and stuck in a supernatural world, once it starts giving threats and commands through "prophets," then spirituality turns into something less. It removes the sacred from reality and puts it in an inaccessible box containing a judgmental, irrational being just like the people who invented it, and that is the opposite of what I call authentic spirituality, which includes a sense of connection and belonging to our world, which resulted in horrors such as these:
- "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position ad responsibilities)
- "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla
- "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.
that is just questioning existence itself .. it doesn't get us anywhere.
I disagree. The question of why there is anything at all including gods is very helpful, even though we have no answer and may never. What it does is show the flaw in the claim that the universe comes from a god because the universe needs a cause - a special pleading argument that has an unjustified different (double) standard for the existence of gods than universes. When I ask creationist theists, which includes anybody who believes that a sentient intelligent designer created nature, to explain that - why is there anything at all including a god, we see answers like yours, which I understand as this being a topic you don't want to address. And it's clear why no creationist wants to approach this. What can one answer that doesn't undermine his claims?
"critical thinking", or materialist thinking?
What is materialist thinking? The unwillingness to believe by faith? If so, then the two terms are synonymous.
Many people state things about God with little knowledge.
Anybody making a claim about gods is doing that, and it's worse than little knowledge. It's none at all.
so we end up with many different creeds and denominations, but still only One God.
"God" or "gods" is a genus, the various individual gods the species. Type versus token: "The type–token distinction is the difference between naming a class (type) of objects and naming the individual instances (tokens) of that class." God is a type, Yahwey, Allah, Odin, and Ahuru Mazda are tokens.
It is certainly possible, as I claim to be no more than human. However, what God the Most High, says in the Qur'an is a different matter. They are not my words.
You responded to, "it is extremely ironic when you claim that "Many people state things about God with little knowledge". You would be included in that group." You just did it again. Here you are telling us what a god did, something that even if it were true, you couldn't know it was. That's why messengers would be an inferior form of communication.
There is a good reason for everything.. Hint: it often has to do with our own desires.
I have to agree with you this time. You responded to, "People that are not Muslim do not tend to be very impressed by his work. There is a very good reason for that." Faith is the will to believe, which implies a psychological benefit, or a need met.
Oh, plenty of evidence has been shown...but you don't want to see it .. you can't see it .. it doesn't exist.
People whose evidence is rejected as supporting their beliefs seem to be unaware that their evidence might be weak, because it's enough for them, so anybody else not convinced by it must not be paying attention or is being recalcitrant. No, the atheists see the evidence. They just understand it differently. When rebuttal is offered, that's when the actual blindness begins, as with our discussion about why there is anything including gods if one believes they exist. I faced the issue. You did not. You didn't want to see the argument, so you waved it away - "Questioning existence doesn't get us anywhere."
Do you think that it is impossible that your thoughts can be known? Can you prove that?
You were asked to "prove that [God]'s aware of what is in our hearts," the claim you made: "Almighty God is aware of what is in our hearts." It doesn't matter that that may be possible. It matters if it is actual. This is you trying to shift the burden of proof: "One example of the burden of proof fallacy is someone who claims that ghosts exists, but doesn't prove this, and instead shifts the burden of proof to others, by stating that anyone who disagrees should prove ghosts don't exist."
you can carry on claiming that everything shown to you is not reliable evidence, and then when asked what, in your opinion, is reliable evidence, you avoid the issue.
Did this Pink Unicorn create and maintain the universe? Well, I can answer that .. no .. a pink Unicorn, if it exists, must be a creature. A creature did not create .. it is part of the creation.
Now substitute "God" for "Invisible pink unicorn." If a god exists, it is a part of nature, not its creator, or do you claim it created itself? Yeah, I know - the analogy will be disqualified on some irrelevant point. This comparison cannot be allowed for obvious reasons and must be dismissed with some just-so answer likely invented on the fly, some form of special pleading.
oh .. and if it's invisible, then how can it be pink? What sort of nonsense is this?
It's religion, just not yours. You just have to accept that it is pink and invisible by faith. You need to stop thinking so hard with your materialist logic.
