I think you deserve a whoosh here, but a very solemn and respectful one for writing an entire essay
Why though? What is it that I failed to understand? It is completely possible that I missed something, but what purpose does it serve to say "you misunderstand" without correcting that misunderstanding?
because when I reread both our post, I still find my response more than appropriate.
In your post, you attack a strawman, dismissing the defense of "free will" with arguments so unreasonably flimsy they may as well not exist. Basically, you were saying I don't like this god, which would be fair enough if you were talking about the same god we were, and then went on a useless political rant that only serves to spread misinformation.
You were claiming things that were not true. I rectified them.
You asked two questions. I answered them to the best of my abilities.
Your arguments were flawed. I pointed out those flaws, so that you could either retract them or rectify them. Arguments against religion exist, but I saw none of them in your post.
As for your claim that you do not like this God, I did not address it. It is your opinion, has nothing to do with this conversation, so there was no need to.
You claimed to enact an agenda, and I found the manner you did it very distasteful. So I pointed it out, in the most respectful and understandable manner I could. I explained my position, made the limits of my arguments clear, and notified the reader of what needed to be fact-checked.
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there is a whole dimension to your post that I did not see. Then I would appreciate a reasoned response, showing me my mistakes. Just dismissing everything sounds remarkably evasive to me.
As an atheist, I very much don't care, but I compared God's state of being to one of a concept, though I wrote that it was a bigger state than that. As for saying that God is a person, I ask without irony since I really don't understand, do you mean a man in the sky?
No, he is not talking about an old man in the sky. He is saying that he is not an inert concept, rigidly acting according to its function, like gravity will always pull on you the same way. He is saying that God has a personality, has desires, can feel and can act according to his own wishes.
The idea of a god that has no desires or personality is more akin to the eastern Tao. It is not the christian god. The christian god has a personality. Only, since he is God and not an imperfect human, his personality has no flaws. He is impartial, but full of mercy. He loves us all, and wishes to save us all from sin, but he still gives us freedom, letting us make our own decisions, even when they are not the best for us.
Of course, those are the beliefs of christanity, and you are free to disagree and argue against them. Just make sure that when you do, your arguments are solid and you're not disrespectfully reducing the other side's point. That will not help you convince anyone, or further any agenda, and at that point it is better to say nothing.
The idea of an old man in the sky comes from the numerous murals and cathedrals where he is depicted that way, but those were only illustartion of something that surpassses our capacities to describe. Just like invisible gravity around a black hole is often depicted as a square grid. It does not reflect reality, it just helps us understand it. Using it to ridicule faith is like using a stickman figure to explain why men cannot become fat.
