Why I say "God(s) exist. But I don't have any".

[quick notes version. This is not a finished draft]

I think it IS reasonable for someone to deduce or intuit that this universe demonstrates intelligence and character.
 
but I also understand why so many critics are like "but does it really?".

 
I see both sides of it.
But
 as for Paul saying basically "if you don't see it, then something is seriously wrong with you", ...

 to me, that's like a JW saying the same thing about their God-concept, or a Roman Catholic saying the same thing about theirs.


I think it's unfair and egocentric. 


I think it's just an expression of personal bias. bias so thick and cemented-in-place that the speaker mistakes their lens as the Cosmic default for all the most reasonable and righteous people.


BUT

like I said


I think it's reasonable for someone to look around and think "Well ... I see it".


But for me, like I said before, that's not a "God" UNLESS someone "feels certain kinda ways about it".



"GOD" is an emotional paradigm "in part".




People exist.

Some people worship other people.

So "to them" some people are "gods".

 But I don't worship other humans.
So those humans aren't a god "to me".
So then their gods exist.
But that doesn't make them "my god".
 

Likewise, ...

A universe-Creator (or maybe a group of those) might be a thing.

 And some people DO worship that concept as a "God".

So if the Universe-creator(s) exist, then their "God(s)" exist.

But I don't "feel that way" about the concept.

So if I became convinced of "super people who did super-create a universe", I'd tell monotheists and polytheists the same thing.

I'd say "Ok. Great. Some universe-creating Super-Being(s) exist."

That means your GOD(s) exist.
But it's not a "God" to me, because:

 God is partly-but-necessarily ALSO an emotional paradigm.

My chronic depression,

and my intellectual objections,

and my ethical objections ...

all prevent (unavoidably prevent) me from "feeling that kindof way about it".
 

So then you "have a god", and some other people "have a (different) god".

and that's a FACT.

 But I don't have one.

 
Now, a religious person could argue "ah. But if you're a virtuous ENOUGH person, you will compulsively (as a result of those virtues) WANT to feel that kindof way about my GOD so that he then becomes yours too."


But I think it would be impossible to logically or ethically justify that idea.


I'm depressed .. .for reasons that have nothing to do with my virtues; nor lack thereof. 


But my depression is partly what keeps me from feeling emotional highs.



That, in turn, keeps me from even being capable of feeling the feelz that are necessary for transformative personal-God type experiences.


The same is true of my rational mind and my personal ethics.
They're like off-brand Legos.
They can't be attached to a different brand.

They can't be made to fit or connect with Christianity, for example.



Now, my rational considerations might be "less rational than I think they are".

But I only have the mind that I have.

So I'm stuck with those as a personal limit.

I can only think as clearly and logically as I can.

So then it doesn't really matter how that compares to anyone else's.
It's not a choice.
  
Same with my ethics.


I did the best I could to be an ethical person
and to reason ethically.

Whatever those limits are (for me), they just are.


So then things that make my mind incompatible with Christianity (every specified form of it that I've ever heard about) ... are irrelevant to choice.


It doesn't seem rational to me;
even if it maybe really is.

It doesn't seem ethical to me;
even if it maybe really is.

etc


And I know it works in reverse.

So when a Christian can't understand, relate, or find value in something I offer, ... that's not a choice either.


Their mind only works however it works.

 They too can only see, grasp, or appreciate ... whatever they can, and to whatever extent they can.
It's not a choice.


And a lot of that is caused by things we aren't even consciously aware of.

like early-childhood situations that were gradually and/or traumatically formative.

along with how language affects our cognitive network


along with how diet, exercise, sleep, etc can also dramatically affect how we think and feel.

so can cultural influences. even in ways we don't realize


any-and-all of that can determine how reasonable, relatable, desirable, or repulsive a religious narrative or values-set will seem;


which has really nothing to do with choosing to be x-amount of honest, loving, humble, etc.


That means it wouldn't really make sense for a well-hidden Super-Being to take it personally whenever the forensic bread crumbs are mistaken for "just bread crumbs", or mistaken for leading to some other God-concept.


If if we say his DEISM isn't hidden at all (as Paul suggests), ...

his far-more-specific character-biography is entirely hidden;

- waiting to be discovered in a book that nobody has an objectively good reason to read. until after they've read it.


which means nobody has a morally-pressing reason to begin reading it.


even if morally-pressing reasons to KEEP reading it AND to take it all seriously ... are in those pages somewhere, ...

nobody has an objectively good reason to open it in the first place.


That, to me, is pretty serious problem.


Moving on from there,

I've done two live-streams in the past 4 months (aprox) where I propose a comprehensive PLAN

 that a Super-Everything-Being could implement ...

that would satisfy EVERY (yes; every) concern that Christians claim their GOD is trying to satisfy (for himself and for us).


If he implements that plan, 

everyone would end up in Heaven eventually, 

and without overriding their will, 

and without any coercion or manipulation. 

It would satisfy every concern ever stated by bible-writers, Christians, people in other religions, AND also every concern stated by atheists.


It wasn't even all that hard to think it through, to come up with that plan.


That means in order for a Christian to say "but my God's current plan is better", 

they have to mean that he has "reasons" (goals) that he isn't being open and honest about.

a hidden agenda with secret concerns that he decided he better not tell anyone about AND which no Christian or Jew has ever been able to intuit or deduce.


That would mean no humans (not even his biggest fans) are equipped to even evaluate the merits of the Bible's proposed plan.

That means:
all a FAN could say is "whatever his reasons are, I'm sure they must be perfect."

 But that means no Christian should ever even try to talk about his reasons for why he does-X but doesn't do Y or Z. 

 Because they don't why. 

If they DID know why (hell, even if they only had a theory about it), then they'd be able to explain exactly where-and-how my plan wouldn't satisfy some very specific concerns. They can't. Because my plan satisfies all the concerns they're yet come up with. 

It means Christians don't actually have a way to justify their God-concept's "Grand Plan" via reason or ethics.

They could only justify their God-Concept by appealing to "FAITH" that is entirely arbitrary EXCEPT that it's the only religious-culture (at this time) that makes them feel how they want to feel. 
-which is not-at-all something they could reasonable argue as "evidence of essential moral character". 
It would only be evidence of enjoying how their "totally not a religion" feels. 

so it always boils down to "I feel like this "totally not a religion" is true. Therefore it must be true".

- Which is fine. 

But my lack of ~feeling that~ has nothing to do with my moral character or virtues.

So then it's automatically indefensible to say we'll be judged by how we respond to the Christian-narrative. 

-which makes the narrative itself
indefensible; except on the grounds "but I feel like it's true" combined with "I'm too virtuous to be wrong".  


---
Addendum>
What about personal miracles?

I never see proof. I only ever hear claims.
But if I grant miracles (which I DO grant), then 
it's only proof of miraculous events.

It's not really good evidence about specific Super-People with specific Super-Agendas.

It's not really good evidence that invisible Super-People are dropping hints that they agree with your "totally not a religion"'s books or culture.

So it doesn't really belong in the discussion, except to say "miracle-X is partly why I feel how I feel". 

That tells me why you feel how you feel.
But it doesn't tell me why I should feel differently than I feel. 
-especially since naturalistic explanations FOR miraculous events are always plausible.

Also, all the other religious-group's member report the same sorts of experiences.

So miracles probably aren't caused by being in the correct religion; or the correct "totally not a religion". 

So then it doesn't really tell me anything about which religion's narrative, threats, or promises I should care about or give credence to.