I found this article on Christianity Today via the Dallas Morning News Religion blog. It’s a classical argument for the existence of God, done a bit better than most. Below is my comment for the DMN blog.
I find the Cosmological arguments compelling, the Teleological and Ontological arguments weak, and the Moral argument blatantly false. But mainly I’m left with the conclusion that if it takes logic this advanced and this nuanced to find God, then God either isn’t there or doesn’t particularly care if we find him or her.
I’m an engineer by training and by personality – I like facts, figures, details, and lots of rational linear logic. If I listened only to that part of me, I’d be an atheist, or at best an agnostic.
Go outside and sit quietly. Feel the sun on your back and the wind on your face. Look up at the night sky and let the moon and stars speak to you. Wade in the river, dance in the rain, walk in the ocean. Watch the miracle of birth and the mystery of death. Don’t try to explain everything, because we humans aren’t as smart as we like to think we are. Just listen.
That’s where I found God.
Am I wrong to refer to “God”? My fear is that if I say “Goddess” or “Goddess and God” the focus of the readers will be directed toward that and not the essence of the argument. I think that essence clearly does NOT refer to the old man with the long white beard, but I still wonder if I shouldn’t be more explicit with Pagan theology…