No I do not.

Though it might work in reverse. God, existing from a scientific perspective maybe only as a subjective concept of its creations, imposing its plan for all.
We, the "circumscribed entity", conforming to its expectations, or not.
Respect for God being critical and belief in the anthropomorphization a sinful distraction.

I had a short period when I was younger when I felt "life had no meaning" In not too long a time it transpired in me that; if "life has no meaning" what was different than if "life has meaning"? Not much, because if nothing changes other than the label, the jar and its contents remain as they were.
So maybe God is a label, which we can remove from the jar. The jar, the way it is opened, the usefulness of the contents, remain the same. And the instructions for opening the jar, the prescriptions for the use of its contents are equally valid with the label removed.

I guess I would call myself a "religionist" if that means that I accept the work of the originators of religions as being a valid effort through intentional striving toward something meaningful (the manipulation of the jar). The work itself or the striving being the crux. Denying comforts, satisfaction and complacency to grasp what it is I need to be and become. This I think is essential though it implies no guarantee. Even the writing of these words separates them further from there objective intent. As the use of the jar is not the jar itself nor the instructions, but rather the act of its use. A transitory thing strived for by all beings.

I like the jar metaphor. I'll have to work on it awhile.

Its good amo for sure.
I'll check back later... if this thing lasts that long.

I was thinking about various people's proofs of God and the general lack of evidence for any sort of God and was reminded of the Babel fish from Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. It seems there's this little fish that if stuck in the ear (or similar facility for detecting sound in other creatures) instantly translated whatever language was spoekn into whatever language the hearer thought in.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
**** The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
**** "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
**** "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p.*50

So then I thought, "Does the lack of anything like a Babel fish support the theory of God's existence?"

Perhaps some day I shall catch such a fish.

I am headed for the outer banks of North Carolina in early august of this summer when, as I hear, most of the good migrations of the usual fare have dried up. And I will do a little Pennsylvania stream fishing before then with fly tackle.

If that day comes I think I could retire on the endorsements, spend my time fixing up the benz and taking it easy, but until then I will keep fishing for the pleasure. There is nothing like standing in the water, hearing it move... sun on your neck, trying to think like a fish.

Originally Posted by Botnst
The problem with trying to arrive at God logically and rationally is that we humans impose our logic and reason on God and expect that its presence will conform to these peculiar forms of expectations. This would be okay if God were a rationally or logically circumscribed entity, but I see no evidence to support that hypothesis, do you?

THere are two questions at play, is there a God, and if so, what is He like.

If God created all that is in existence, then logic and rationality are included, hence it would follow he is a rational and logical Creator.

Jesus most certainly had to be a capitalist and a conservative on most issues.
Most seem to mix up the meanings behind many of his parables and statements.

For example, the so called ban on punishment for adultry isnt so. The Jewish leaders were trying to trap him, and Jesus was merely pointing out their hypocracy, He was NOT saying adultery is ok, or should go unpunished, dont forget, he also admonished her and said, "go and sin no more"

Dont forget also the parable of the talents, where the servants were to use the masters money to earn more money, pure capitalism.

Jesus a socialist? Ha, the above mentioned parable proves he wasnt.

Death penalty, apparently He okayed it, cuz he allowed his own to occur.

Homosexualilty, Jesus believes in the sanctity of marriage and sex as that being proper only in a marriage between a man and a woman.

Creating a universe that humans perceive a certain way is evidence that humans evolved in this universe and are capable of understanding the portion in which they live. Are humans now capable, or will they ever become capable of fully understanding the entire universe? If not, then rationality and logic are insufficient tools for universal understanding. That doesn't mean that God is or is not rational, but it does speak to human limitations in this universe.

Your last statement is an assertion of a proposition as fact. Homosexual rights folks claim that none of Jesus' quotations speak to homosexuality per se, but that his two great commandments encompass homosexual love. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to prove the proposition of the homosexuals wrong, or to prove that your proposition is correct.

Are you saying the point of Jesus's parable of the talents is that we should all go out and make money for those we serve? I have always been taught that it was a metaphor for increasing one's spirtual gifts and working to expand the kingdom of God. To claim that Jesus is giving some kind of accounting or business managment lesson here seems a little spirtually wanting. I think it is obvious, if you look at everything Jesus said, that he asks us to put the needs of the poor above our own. I really don't see how we can apply modern loaded political terms to him like "socialist" or "conservative", but I doubt he would find a lot of support for these positions among the capitalists and conservatives of today:

"Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation."(Luke: 6; 24).

"No man can serve two masters…Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew: 6; 24)

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."(Matthew: 19; 23)

"all ye are brethren." (Matthew"23;8)

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."(Matthew: 22; 39)

"All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew: 7; 12)

"Let everyone who possesses two shirts share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise." (Luke: 3; 11)

"Give to every man that asketh of thee." (Luke: 6; 30)

Apparently Jesus is an environmentalist
 

http://nytimes.com/2005/03/10/national/10evangelical.html

All is not right in the Garden, or Evangelicals embrace environmentalism.

having read only the title and not one letter of any response I can only offer a follow-up question....Who cares?

perhaps more important than what he is is what would he do?

or is it she?