...theism (writes TFF), traditional or not, is the epitome of obscurantism.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but matter-of-fact.
I, too, like being matter-of-fact and non-confrontational. Obviously, we have things in common.
I AM, AT LEAST, THREE COMPONENTS OF BEING
Therefore, let me (LGK) put it this way: Because I think of myself as a human being and, therefore, aware that I am aware, I think of myself as being made up of, at least, three components (essential and integrated parts) as follows:
1. I have a physical body--which is not unlike the hardware of my computer
2. I have a physical brain--not unlike the software of my computer.
3. However, I think of myself as being a mind, a consciousness, a soul, a spirit--not just matter, however important--which, though very weak, has will-power.
Unlike animals, and certain animal-like, so-called human beings, I know that I have the power to make a choice.
When I sit as my PC, I tell it what do. I have a strong feeling that if I put garbage in, I will get garbage out. "As I sow, so will I reap" as Paul put it, in Galatians.
As a human mind, whatever...I am free to use this weak power to programme the software and harness the hardware I possess, and to get things done, which I choose to get done.
Weak power may be a weak, but it is still a power. It is, like the trigger which triggers atomic explosions.
Here, I left out the story about Dan.
BTW, your question: How should Dan respond? confuses me (LGK).
I (LGK) wrote: "I have a theological concept which I think of as transparent."
You (TFF) responded: "I'm not sure what you mean by transparent, here."
Let me put it this way: G?D is the symbol I use to refer to total universal and all-encompassing existence--the total matrix of all that IS.
If you can think of anything outside the matrix of existence, as I think of it, and demonstate that it is beyond what I include, then I will agree to include it.
G?D is the symbol I use to cover that which is over and above, all that can be covered.
"I call this concept G?D."
Still confused? Let me know, and ask questions.
"I am testing this concept, on a daily basis,"
You ask, "Are these tests that could conceivable disprove the existence of God?"
YES!!! If it doesn't work, it does not exist.
I WILL LEAVE THE FOLLOWING FOR COMMENT, LATER:
I'm very happy for you. No kidding. No sarcasm. I am happy for you. But science isn't about what works for individuals.
"I do not pray in the traditional way, because it does not work."
It doesn't work for you. There are people for whom it does work (after a fashion).
"BTW, I find the kind of dialogue offered above, quite stimulating, and civilized, even where I disagree, which is not all that often."
I can imagine.
I congratulate you for not getting upset with me. I know I can be very irritating at times. But I'd rather be irritating than patronizing.
"I always try to look for points of agreement.":
That's a fine quality in a human being.
