Origin of God? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Monday, April 25, 2016, 12:20 (3133 days ago) @ David Turell

David: We do not why He did what He did. Basically I think our analysis has to come back to recognizing His acts are purposeful, but his underlying motives are hidden. We can be thankful we are here, nothing more. This is the maturity of thought Armstrong and I follow. -dhw: If you are now telling us that neither you nor Karen Armstrong can tell what he is like by seeing what he has created, and we should ignore the development of human concepts re God as the religious books appeared, and that “we can be thankful we are here, nothing more”, that's fine with me, though I can't help wondering what the rest of your Armstrong posts have been about.-DAVID: What you have seen is my interpretation of Armstrong's views. Armstrong describes how religions view God in their 'faith' proclamations, but I never find her own personal view of God's personality. When she left her nun's order, it was because she came to find Catholic theology so frightening. She presents how different theologians and religions approached a presentation of their faith in God, not an analysis of God's personality. I simply work from what I see has been created. As an example of my viewpoint is my observation that one of God's works is human beings.
Chance cannot produce humans or their consciousness. Therefore God exists. Just that simple. As a reminder, you keep wanting more detail, when none exists for analysis. God is concealed.-The subject we started with on this thread was concepts of God. This branched out into origins when you raised the subject of why so many societies believe in a form of deity. For some reason, the thread then went back to concepts of God, and you brought in Armstrong's views, and the OT, NT and Koran. You have now switched from concepts of God to your reasons for believing that God exists. I hate to say it, but you have lost the thread.