John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
I start with the null hypothesis. That there is no reason to accept the claim that any god exists until a connection between a god and existence has been demonstrated. That would extend to revelation - there is no reason to accept a connection between (purported) revelation and god until such is demonstrated.
I think it was Heidegger (perhaps in Being and Time) who suggested that the fact that anything does exist, rather than not, is the miraculous thing. Add to that the fact that sentient creatures can acknowledge, and speak of existence, and voila, in my opinion we have something parallel in significance and self-evidency as the existence of something we could easily label "God."
Defining that "God" is problematic since in some sense even knowledgeable theists concede that God is atheistic. The atheist's rejection of a God that "exists" (so to say) is part and parcel of a true understanding of God. Which is to say that a fuller understanding of the true theology of God must incorporate atheism as one of the legitimate branches of theology: Judeo/Christian/Atheism.
John
Last edited: