Ezra Lb. wrote:3. Barber I can't criticize your view. I wish more religious believers actually thought the way you do. My only question is, since what you are doing, essentially, is reverencing the conditions of the reality in which we find ourselves; it's mysterious origins, our ability to think and consider these conditions, the awe and wonder associated with such consideration, why bring the god concept into it at all? It seems to me the image of god brings with it a whole host of unnecessary and irrelevant associations that might actually blind us to this reality. Do we need all that baggage?
It's a good question, but the core assumption is wrong. You're assuming baggage where none is intended. The concept of God is what we bring to it, not the other way around. The baggage is your own based upon the preconception of what God is. There is no formality, nor expectation. It simply is what it is.
You bring up the image of god, which is the fallacy here. God is creation, and therefore has only the definition of God is that which is in front of your eyes. Anything else is baggage.
(Damn. Screw Hubbard, I may be onto something.)