If I am dying of thirst and you take my last $100.00, in exchange for a glass of water, we can describe the action as uncharitable.
Exactly...but you CANNOT define it as CHARITABLE. Because it is not. "Uncharitable" means that the action performed was not informed by charity or charitableness. Do you understand the difference between SOMETHING, and the absence of something? An act that is UNcharitable does not have the quality of charity within it.
"Most of your treatment on nature, infinity etc seems sensible albeit with a sarcastic tone that I don't understand."
It is only apparent--not real. Absurdities, when recognized at an inner level, sometimes invoke a reaction which is often mistaken for the impression that one is being sneered at or mocked--which here is not the case. I think, though, that your idea of "God" mocks itself. I think the opinions you hold on "God" are utterly inane; but that is simple honesty about my beliefs as regards opinion. I think you are probably a very decent guy; and this is far more important to me than what you imagine..provided your imagination does not suggest any authority for you to interfere with my freedom to live, think, or pursue happiness in my own way, while respecting and honoring the rights of all people.
_____________________________________
"God is Beneficent and there is evidence of that in scripture and historical accounts"
I have read a great deal on religion, and I can say nothing about God other than the fact that none of the "evidence" from either philosophy or "scripture" is sufficient to suggest any reliability for any of the claims being made. Furthermore, most "scriptures" are so obviously related to human interests in defense of group claims of materiality, that it seems feckless to pursue the matter in a serious way (as regards the evidentiary value of scripture) until science or philosophy have suggested an approach which is not contaminated by the too too obvious histories of those religions we have researched. "The "Scriptures" I have seen are the penultimate authority for rejection of their claims.
"Given the definition we started with the Universe can be explained"
Not logically. Any definition can be invented which would have internal consistency within logic. However, definitions which do not do even that, are a waste of time, IMO. |
