oooh, yay, talking further! sorry if i'm pokeyish
"Paragraph 1 - No apologies needed, I went to law school and have 'enjoyed' a number of mock trials myself. A more recent philospher once wrote (can't remember who it was sadly) that 'If god exists, he doesn't have a sense of humour. You see, a sense of humour presupposes intelligence. And intelligence requires brain. But god doesn't have a brain?!'
"
Intelligence requires a brain? Really, does it?? For us maybe--let's not go defining the whole universe by human PHYSICAL characteristics now :X (No really I'm not trying to be a smartass--if God were just, say, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, where is Its brain exactly--and can we assume it knows nothing just because we see nothing but meatballs? Maybe the ground beef has synapses--assuming that's what it is! I think not but it would make communion a lot more fun. Yes I know the Spaghetti Monster is a satire ;P)
Besides, who said God has no brain anyway? It's one thing if It definitely does not exist--but either way no one has seen It so how can we say what It has or doesn't have (Unless the dude was being facetious a la "Invisible Pink Unicorn," like "how do we know it's pink if it's invisible," blah blah blah, how the frik does anyone know what it has or doesn't have, ESPECIALLY if it doesn't exist? Not getting it. UNLESS the guy was satirizing the whole idea of intelligence being a "human tendency" ascribed to God in which case, point taken, but presumptuous as hell, no? Yeah, the humans totally OWN intelligence, man!)
But yes, in projecting my own emotions onto God, I totally admit to that, as it's not like I am capable of doing anything else :) And it's good you notice that too--maybe I misunderstood the question then, as you seemed to be asking "why in the world would the Ambiguously Existent Monster have created us--after all, we totally suck and swallow by all these different (human) standards." Maybe this God is grooming us specifically to destroy everything and likes that sort of thing, as long as we can't assume that the "usual" things for US make IT tick at all. (I am not making fun of you--I'm totally serious--did I misundersand the question after all?)
"My point is, on the religious scale that we are restricted by, what is the point of humans being created, other than to satisfy the insecurities of the the very god that created all of this."
D'oh. Sure seems that way, doesnt' it. But even the insecurity surmising would be projection, no? (And I say this, totally thinking God IS often misrepresented (or invented, take yer pick) by being described as a "big mean man," so I see your point--BUT I'd try not to respond to a fallacy with ITSELF, if that makes sense? For example--Sure, God's insecure. It's just as good an explanation as ANY :X Am I right or am I right. )
"Please ellaborate on how things are not better without us. Nothing natural on this earth or in the cosmos needs us. If we did not exist they'd be just fine. Humans have been around for about 100,000 years, but certain animals have existed for well over 200 million... how did they do it?! As to our removal from nature, anything random occuring on a cosmological scale and we will all be gone in an instant"
Actually that was my point--the earth and cosmos WOULD most likely be just fine without us--NOT better off. Just fine and better off are two different things. To say the cosmos needs us and to say it is better without us are equally flattering to ourselves and our desperate need to think we make this big difference in all existence, if only by our amazing power of destruction. (Oh please) I know that is not whut YOU were saying--I just am explaining that "they'd be just fine" is exactly what I MEANT--"better off," to me implies there would be a difference. I'm sure the world would just go on as always--unless we play some delicate ecological role that we are not aware of--but whatever--in that case, it would CHANGE if we were gone, but not CEASE. O well--it kind of sounds like we agree more than not on this, actually sooo whatever.
But I like the idea, actually of "No need to read God's mind, since It doesn't have one," since either way it's unlikely It has OUR definition of one. We need to consider God NOT to have one, since God's "mind" is not something we are equipped to HAVE a concept of. So I agree but for the opposite reason ;P peace out!