Let’s get back to the beginning again.
Is there a God? What do you think? How do we begin to approach such a question?
Some physicists look into the night sky, and see a mind behind the laws and order of the universe.
Some artists look at the sunrise and see a great Artist.
Spiritual people sometimes feel a connection with nature, and the Universe.
Christians look at Christ, and see God.
What do you see? What do you think?
Is there a God? And, if so, what, or who, is God?
Who’d know, really?
See above.
By phrasing it correctly for a start: I really like how this one was done.
… some others feel themselves forced to note the lack of realisation of specific human needs in certain individuals and how the phrase “God” (in some way) fills it.
I see a universe.
And I think it really blows me away.
But I really, really try to train myself not to let my ignorance of the workings of such unfathomable wonders lead me to conclude for things outside or “above” them. Where’s the connection? My ignorance of them is my ignorance of them. It is no other. A feeling of wonder/awe at the cosmos may well (and correctly) engender a sense of smallness. But such a sense should be only directed inward towards ourselves since it is provoked by +our+ opinion of +our+ relative position within that cosmos. An outward projection while seemingly unavoidable is not intellectually valid.
And sure I fail in this. Plenty do also. I recognise my failure: see (still pretty dimly but improving) that what I do not understand cannot be a conclusion for God.
Is there a God? Who’d know? I most certainly know that the so-called proofs (for eg the above) need to be more rigorous.
The who…well that comes waay later. For me at least; deism being a real hard nut to crack with all good apologists recognising it.
My gut reaction though? Is/was there an originator? Yes.
Can I possibly sustain this position intellectually?
I for one would be embarrassed to try … my “proofs” coming only from my sense of smallness/awe/ignorance of the workings of the cosmos.
I’m surprised you don’t seen an intellectual stance in your perception. Much of science is rooted, interestingly, in intuition. For me, I see design. I’m much less fluent in the language of physics, though I know physicists often also see a designer. Others, it seems, see the potential for a designer.
For me, the picture is clearer looking inwards: to biology. The argument? This kind of complexity doesn’t just happen by itself.
Why does this kind of complexity not happen by itself?
Show me the complexity making itself. That is one of the remarkable realities about the Theory of Evolution: there is actually no evidence put forward for the proposed mechanism. Life comes from life. Like comes from like. Biology is encoded. Can the code arise by itself? Show me the evidence. Can a species progressively evolve into another, through all of the necessary developmental stages? Show me how this can be biologically feasible.