That’s cool. At the end if the day, we all decide what our best life strategies will be, and I don’t see anything unreasonable in yours. My intention is not to criticize you or your approach. I am thinking through different positions that I have not thought through before, and I thank you for indulging me as I do that.Themis wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:36 amI never felt relief when I realized the Mormon God did not exist, but it did free me up for other possibilities. I suppose if believe in God was attached to having to do things one does not want to do it might be a relief realizing that God does not exist. I'm not sure what you think is at stake, unless it is something like we see In Mormonism or Christianity of not believing in God means being damned, but then we probably wouldn't get the right one anyways. I like what Amy from Big Bang theory says "I don't object to the concept of a deity, but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance". It reasonably baffles me that God would want belief in God in order to avoid punishment or receive a reward. For me the most reasonable position is agnostic in light of no good evidence of God.
What I notice in your comments is a persistent tendency to anthromorphize Deity. Comparing God to Bigfoot, God taking attendance, and the like. For a former Mormon, that is probably the most natural thing to do, and what I am suggesting is that it is these acts of anthropomorphization that probably trip people up in thinking about the existence of Deity.
I am primarily thinking about Deity here as a logical construct that mystics relate to the mystical experience of infinite being. Both the logical construct and the mystical experience bear very little resemblance to the anthropomorphized image or construct of Deity. Those who operate in the frameworks of mysticism and classical theism have very different criteria from those who want to find God’s poop in the Garden of Eden before they ‘believe’ in Deity.
I can see what you are saying, but I also see that this line of thinking is completely disconnected from theism as I have been discussing it. Mystics hold their experience of infinite being to be sufficient evidence. Maybe that is the evidence that is available to the small apertures of the human organism. But if your expectations of God were always conditioned to be anthropomorphic in nature, you will continue to think that the evidence must be different.While one existing would have real significance to us, it doesn't change the fact they both lack good evidence. Lack of evidence means one doesn't need to argue for their non-existence. Those claiming they exist need to make good arguments involving good evidence they do exist in order for others to reasonably agree with their claims. The most reasonable position is that they probably don't exist, but open to any evidence they do. Most people have no problem dismissing extraordinary claims that don't relate to religious or political beliefs.
That said, I am not saying there is anything wrong with what you are saying, and I am not trying to be difficult. I am deliberately cutting against the grain of our usual discussions of this subject to experiment.