"There is evidence of a Creator if you just look for it"
well yeah... but only for other people.
This is a joke right?
Yes it's a good article because it presents BOTH sides of the argument, that of Dawkins and that of the articles author.
There are many more articles out there that just make the case for him being atheist.
PERSONALLY I think he is best described as agnostic as at some points he seemed undecided.
Howevereven if Einstein was a theist, it does not prove anything.
There are many great minds today, Stephen Hawking for example, who are atheist.
Again, if there was a Creator who cared (which is what I'm talking about in my OP) why is their message so convoluted that we have to look towards earthly mans personal beleifs and appeal to authority. We should not have to look towards anything but the Creator communicating to us in a clear manner directly to us, not through a book or through having to dig out whole lives through a seemingly infinite amount of arguments for and against a Creator.
If I was a father and wanted my children to listen to household rules, I would meet with them face to face and speak with them clearly and specifically within my imperfect, earthly ability, NOT write the rules in a book (these rules being convoluted and open to interpretation) and then disappear from their lives forever which it seems is what this Creator has done, and this supposedly from a perfect being. One could argue justifiably that this Creator did not disappear since they didn't even make their presence known in an undeniable way in the first place.
How ever even if Einstein was a theist, it does not prove anything., unsure:
I am not trying to, by invoking Einstein, to have authority, he just resonates with me in his original expressions (he lived in my home town for a long time).
He was not a theist, but a deist. He had a disastrous family life and rejected a personal, intervening god. did not believe in an afterlife : "ach was"
I agree with you, that it is confusing to listen to all the arguments or sort out what supposedly inspired books or interpretation thereof give by way of insights into "god".
Research into creation itself should give a picture of the creator, or absence of.
Listening to the results of the top researchers, theorists would give us an inkling.
" go not beyond the things
writtencreated" , my credo.
There is also much "evidence" for ghosts, for those who look for them. lol.
One can find
confirmation bias"evidence" for just about anything that one is looking for.
Its not even if there is a god (which I don't believe there is), but why I am certain that a god NEVER communicated with humans.
If a god ever did communicate with humans - these 3 things would be absolutely true.
1. It would be Indisputable. No one would doubt the message was from a deity.
2. It would be Unambiguous. Everyone would know exactly what was being said and asked. You would not have every third person interpret it in their own way.
3. It would be Globally Accepted.
Since none of these things apply to any holy writing - I know that no deity has communicated with humans.
Since none of these things apply to any holy writing - I know that no deity has communicated with humans" ttdtt
so we have to look elsewhere in the traces left in the creation process, started ~ 13 billion earth years ago. May be, there is a subtle hint here and there. like a non-essential artistic touch.
Do you believe in a non-personal, non-intervening Creator or a personal God?
Ignore that last question as it's not important.
Either way, a personal God who loves and wants our salvation, should not have us "look elsewhere in the traces left in the creation process", to quote you.
As is the point in my OP and in other posters replies, it shouldn't be this difficult if a personal God who cares exists. It should be extremely apparent.
Again, I'm agnostic, but I hope if there is a personal God, they would not fault me for asking for undeniable evidence.
Many who are exponentially better versed on the subject would argue that there is no evidence for a non-personal Creator either.
us: looking at nature, it appears to me that he would resemble an obsessive artist, hobbyist, that cares little what others would think of his work, he likes to reward success though.
Many theorist have the opinion that time is fundamental, eternal, and with it energy as the possession of such an extra dimensional being.
He certainly has imbued living matter through the outworking of the laws with an extraordinary drive to thrive, just looked at all the spring flowers and buds budding today.
His work is good enough that he does not need to tinker again. (contrary what Newton thought).
I am a skilled tradesman, and I have yet to see anything, even the fundamentals rise from nothing, and that is the final frontier, the given we have to accept, how it was done , no matter,-- enjoy it, make the best. happiness comes from creating.
PS: Creation is the undeniable evidence that there is a creator. Since he left it for us to pry out the evidence how things work (were created) and allowed curiosity to roam freely, how could he, if there is an accounting, fault you from asking for a more direct method that suits you? If there is a hidden meaning to our lives (which is not apparent from just living a natural life) using this life well,- should be a good recommendation before a person that appears to be so pragmatic and direct in his works. just my thought on that today.