Do you think that God actually exists?

[defpearlpilot]

Yes, I do!

First, if you don't think there is a god then I submit that you must ask yourself if you believe you actually have a "soul" inside your body - one responsible for your consciousness and thought. Or, do you believe you are no more than a mere walking lump of protoplasm? As for me, I can "feel" my soul as I sit here.

If there truly is such a thing as a soul or ghost inside each of us, then there must be a God that has created us and we are much more than a walking slug with no thought or purpose. At least that is how I try to logically analyze the subject. YMMV.

And I may be in the minority but I believe Darwin was an IDIOT!!! How can an animal "decide" it wants stereo vision, hearing, wings, etc.? How did the first living thing decide it needed a circulatory system, lungs to oxygenate said blood system, a digestive system, and means to reproduce all at once before it died? If you can't look at all living things and see a brilliant and grand design than I don't know what to say to you.

But if I'm wrong, then it doesn't matter once I die. If you don't believe in a true Creator, then what happens after you die and you find out you're wrong? I wish you would error on the side of caution, if not by the logic of the aforementioned reasonings in the paragraphs above. I wish you the best in your search for truth in this amazing universe and our short but wonderful lives.

I remember when i was growing up, I was a believer. So much so that I remember crying a couple of times due to "feeling" a presence. This was when I was pretty young and uneducated about the history of mankind and religious works. But back then, it was about an emotion. About wanting to be accepted and part of something. To feel loved.

I then took humanities in high school and I was like WTF? All the stuff in Christianity was present in the Greeks and Romans. And they ripped it off from the Egyptians, who were essentially sun worshippers. If you do your research, you'll find that Christianity is actually modern sun worship. As well as NUMEROUS religions that have a person that was born of a virgin, died and rose on the third day, performed various miracles, etc.

Science has found no evidence of a soul. Why is that responsible for thought? I believe that I am simply a human being that has a consciousness. Either way, if you do have a soul, why does that mean there is a God. It's not a logical conclusion.

I also think that a lot of religious people are confused about Darwin. Animals don't decide what they need, just as much as humans don't. Through the generations, there are minor mutations. If those mutations are useful, then those with them tend to survive.

As far as erring on the side of caution, that is not logical either. Mainly because there is no way to decide which God will be your redeemer. So your chances aren't that great in that case either.

Also, about the people that found God and their lives improving... Do you think it has to do with belief in God or the fact that they cleaned up their lives. I'm sure you'll find many God fearing people that are alcoholics that are wasted humans. I know many of them.

 

[hairychris444]

Sorry, had to reply to this post!!!

Down the centuries people have invented numerous gods and religions. But what is the point of bowing down to lifeless statues, like the great stone beetles which were often used in the ancient east? What is the point? Why do people do it? For if we make gods ourselves, we know that they have no life, and any divine aura around them is merely projected from superstitious imaginations.

People project human faces on to things that they experience, or don't understand. The weather is a prime example - the lack of, or excess of, rain could be construed by someone who desn't know better as the displeasure of a being that controls the rain. I mean, on a different level, most of us who have pets talk to them as if they were human. That's projection too!

In regards to knowing which one is the right one? I will break this down from some writings that make sense to me.

First, the non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of God is provable.

Existence of god(s) is NOT provable by any measure. Conversely, watertight proof of the non-existence of god(s) is also not possible.

Most arguments for the existence of God can be disproved. All the first cause stuff, Thomist philosophy, and so on has real problems when logical argument is applied. We also have major problems with the actual God of Christianity and what his attributes are suppsoed to be, but that's picking holes in an individual case.

The regularity of nature is a major battleground for these questions. Theists say that nature can be arbitrarily changed without a physical cause, atheists say that this is impossible.

Please remember this: by claiming that God exists YOU are the one making a positive claim. You need to back it up!

The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate an intelligent designer.

Wrong, unfortunately. Regularity and adapation should NOT be mistaken as design.

There's things that are not understood (mainly revolving around the start of life) but the blind progression of life is very well documented...

Both direct and indirect evidence for God’s existence are well known and well documented. Nothing in history is better known or better documented than the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We even use the year of His birth as the basis for our calendar. He perfectly matched the over 100 unique Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament regarding His birth, life, death, and resurrection. The laws of probability cannot give us a reasonable explanation for either the Messianic predictions or the resurrection, let alone both by the same person.

Most of the documentation is not of an independant type. The use of BC and AD is cultural due to church domination of Europe for a millenia and should NOT be taken as truth by it's very existence (as the church took great care in wiping out dissent of ALL types). The Jews have their own calendar. Is theirs wrong?

The prophetic OT references are questionable, to be honest. You are aware that there have been fundamental mistranslations in the Bible (young woman to virgin in one instance - don't have the ref with me but it's in relation to prophecy) and it's unfortunately relatively easy to fit the result from a prophecy if it's vague enough.

FWIW I'm grinding through the OT at the moment but at my current rate it'll be years before I have any details to add! I just argue over fundamentals!

Jesus’ miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by Peter, James, and John. His wisdom in dealing with many circumstances was astounding. He never promoted Himself or His miracles. C. S. Lewis stated that He couldn’t have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn’t even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so He had to be God.

Again, proof. I wouldn't take P, J & J as independent. Not sure about the resurrection, but that's another matter.

JC may have been a good teacher. In fact, it's reasonably certain that he had some sort of Rabbinical training as he was well aware of Jewish scripture. Problem: You couldn't undergo Rabbinical training unless you're married. Interesting..!!

On the other hand, he may have been the combination of a real man with legendary aspects (virgin birth, resurrection and so-on were not new concepts). I'm not going down that path, but personally I have no idea whether he existed or not. If he did, then he was probably a trained Rabbi who lead a mystic sect (Essene teaching have a lot in common with Jesus's actions, so him being a mystic of this nature is historically possible. It could also explain his crucifixion for crimes against Rome if he was preaching pacifism, monotheism, and the fact that a 'Kingdom of Heaven' would be more important then the Empire of Rome. That wouldn't have gone down too well, believe you me!).

Jesus Christ also supported the truth of the Old Testament and quoted it many times. Consequently, with Jesus Christ, we have an eyewitness to the truth of the Old Testament. This gives credibility to the creation account and God’s interaction with man. The entire Old Testament account is about how God is trying to have a relationship with man while man is separating himself from God by sin. It tells how God is long-suffering and merciful and ultimately how God sent His Son to die for our sins so God could ultimately have a relationship with us.

As I mentioned, someone who'd trained as a Rabbi would know the scripture backwards.

As for God suffering... Well, he didn't seem to suffer too much in the OT. His 'good' guys lied, cheated, stole, and commited genocide in his name so I have no idea what his problem was. Genesis is a really messed up story, I'm afraid!

God’s interaction with man in the Old Testament was often and powerful. Some of the main interactions included Adam, Cain, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, the Israelites, the prophets, and the kings. In addition to Jesus’ testimony to the truth of the Old Testament, ancient manuscripts, archaeology, and internal consistency also testify to its truth. Consequently, much direct evidence including eyewitness accounts and indirect evidence corroborate the existence of God and the truth of the Bible.

Again, how do we know that any of this is correct? Are the tales form, say, Genesis LITERALLY true?*

If not, then what IS the truth. If they are correct then, well, we'd all better go back to living in tents because we can't trust the world to stay the way that it is now!

*I agree that chunks of archiological evidence are in the right ballpark. However, the same could be said about Troy but does that mean that Greek mythic heros battled it out too?

Now does that mean everyone here will read that and believe now. Definitely not, depending on the calvinist or armenian approach you may not have the choice. God may decide for you and your free will may mean nothing in regards to this. Or you may have free will but since God is all knowing then your decision is already understood and known by God.

Aha, good pickupon the whole predestination thing. In fact, if God was omniscient, I'd have to agree with their approach.

Philosophical question: an the Christian God suprise himself?

Yes as you can see I am a believer and think there are plenty of reasons to believe in Christ as our redeemer. I honestly do not think anybody is getting saved based on this post or any posts on these forums. I see people say that you find God when your sick, on your death bed, etc.. but it is quite obvious a lot of healthy individuals find Christ because of Gods irresistable Grace, and at a time when it is revealed they accept. Each of you will have true opportunities to accept, some will some will not that is just a fact of this life. I hope each one of you make the best decision when the time comes. Be it today or later in life.

You are who you are. For me to 'find God' would involve fundamental changes to how my brain works. Maybe it's why I prefer computers and guitar to people most of the time. I see the universe as a huge mechanical toy. If this toy had a creator it will forever be outside the box in which this toy sits. The lack of an afterlife to look forwards makes me appreciate now more. It's not depressing, it just means that you don't have any second chances...

Everyone enjoy their day and pick up your guitar and play for at least 2 hours today.

I wish I could get 2 hours a day in!

 

[hairychris444]

Science has found no evidence of a soul. Why is that responsible for thought? I believe that I am simply a human being that has a consciousness. Either way, if you do have a soul, why does that mean there is a God. It's not a logical conclusion.

I also think that a lot of religious people are confused about Darwin. Animals don't decide what they need, just as much as humans don't. Through the generations, there are minor mutations. If those mutations are useful, then those with them tend to survive.

As far as erring on the side of caution, that is not logical either. Mainly because there is no way to decide which God will be your redeemer. So your chances aren't that great in that case either.

Also, about the people that found God and their lives improving... Do you think it has to do with belief in God or the fact that they cleaned up their lives. I'm sure you'll find many God fearing people that are alcoholics that are wasted humans. I know many of them.

I agree with this, definitely!

Admittedly we can't prove that we have a soul, but we do have the mental power to abstract, and a sense of self identity. We can project concepts into different situations, a major part of our problem solving arsenal, so projecting our thoughs on to an immaterial soul is consistent. I seem to remember having an interesting discussion on HC (before I was banned) about the interaction of the brain and soul - eg, if you sustain brain damage (the medium) and your personality changes (software error, say) what is your *true* soul?

A lot of people are confused about Darwin. I've got 'On the Origin of Species' in my bag right now for reading on the commute. You've got it nailed here!

Glad you caught Pascal's Wager here. That's one of the most stupid reasons to believe - first the probablility of God or not is seen as 50/50, secondly the only choice is between atheism and (in Pascal's case) Catholicism woth NO other options. By this reasoning I should worship the god who can stick me with the worst after death punishment for disbelief just to cover the worst base!

And yeah, true. Belief itself is a powerful thing...

 

[tweed]

This has been a great thread!!! Lots of interesting stuff in it. I'm wondering what you guys opinion is of the supposed lost books of the bible and other texts like the Dead Sea scrolls, Enoch, etc. I have been researching a bit lately and thinking about looking into these other texts. Another topic of facination kinda along the same lines is Demonology/Exorcism. Anythoughts on that stuff?

 

[Telephant]

I had to force myself to not read this thread. This topic always ends up aggravating me.

I will say this: I think as long as you live with love in your heart and you're a good person, nothing else matters.

 

[defpearlpilot]

I agree with this, definitely!

Admittedly we can't prove that we have a soul, but we do have the mental power to abstract, and a sense of self identity. We can project concepts into different situations, a major part of our problem solving arsenal, so projecting our thoughs on to an immaterial soul is consistent. I seem to remember having an interesting discussion on HC (before I was banned) about the interaction of the brain and soul - eg, if you sustain brain damage (the medium) and your personality changes (software error, say) what is your *true* soul?

A lot of people are confused about Darwin. I've got 'On the Origin of Species' in my bag right now for reading on the commute. You've got it nailed here!

Glad you caught Pascal's Wager here. That's one of the most stupid reasons to believe - first the probablility of God or not is seen as 50/50, secondly the only choice is between atheism and (in Pascal's case) Catholicism woth NO other options. By this reasoning I should worship the god who can stick me with the worst after death punishment for disbelief just to cover the worst base!

And yeah, true. Belief itself is a powerful thing...

Right! Or what about someone with Alzheimers?

Belief is truly powerful thing. Religion is one of my favorite topics.. along with Politics. Well, they pretty much go hand in hand. Having money buys you power. But money only goes so far. People have their own beliefs. Controlling belief is the truest power, IMO.

 

[soc_monki]

Down the centuries people have invented numerous gods and religions. But what is the point of bowing down to lifeless statues, like the great stone beetles which were often used in the ancient east? What is the point? Why do people do it? For if we make gods ourselves, we know that they have no life, and any divine aura around them is merely projected from superstitious imaginations.

In regards to knowing which one is the right one? I will break this down from some writings that make sense to me.

First, the non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of God is provable.

The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate an intelligent designer.

Both direct and indirect evidence for God’s existence are well known and well documented. Nothing in history is better known or better documented than the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We even use the year of His birth as the basis for our calendar. He perfectly matched the over 100 unique Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament regarding His birth, life, death, and resurrection. The laws of probability cannot give us a reasonable explanation for either the Messianic predictions or the resurrection, let alone both by the same person.

Jesus’ miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by Peter, James, and John. His wisdom in dealing with many circumstances was astounding. He never promoted Himself or His miracles. C. S. Lewis stated that He couldn’t have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn’t even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so He had to be God.

Jesus Christ also supported the truth of the Old Testament and quoted it many times. Consequently, with Jesus Christ, we have an eyewitness to the truth of the Old Testament. This gives credibility to the creation account and God’s interaction with man. The entire Old Testament account is about how God is trying to have a relationship with man while man is separating himself from God by sin. It tells how God is long-suffering and merciful and ultimately how God sent His Son to die for our sins so God could ultimately have a relationship with us.

God’s interaction with man in the Old Testament was often and powerful. Some of the main interactions included Adam, Cain, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, the Israelites, the prophets, and the kings. In addition to Jesus’ testimony to the truth of the Old Testament, ancient manuscripts, archaeology, and internal consistency also testify to its truth. Consequently, much direct evidence including eyewitness accounts and indirect evidence corroborate the existence of God and the truth of the Bible.

Now does that mean everyone here will read that and believe now. Definitely not, depending on the calvinist or armenian approach you may not have the choice. God may decide for you and your free will may mean nothing in regards to this. Or you may have free will but since God is all knowing then your decision is already understood and known by God.

Yes as you can see I am a believer and think there are plenty of reasons to believe in Christ as our redeemer. I honestly do not think anybody is getting saved based on this post or any posts on these forums. I see people say that you find God when your sick, on your death bed, etc.. but it is quite obvious a lot of healthy individuals find Christ because of Gods irresistable Grace, and at a time when it is revealed they accept. Each of you will have true opportunities to accept, some will some will not that is just a fact of this life. I hope each one of you make the best decision when the time comes. Be it today or later in life.

Everyone enjoy their day and pick up your guitar and play for at least 2 hours today.

so many things wrong with this...the existance, or non-existance, of a god is not provable. no way, no how. you CANNOT prove the supernatural by scientific means, and thats where FAITH comes in.

as for having a "designer"...i watched a bit of a show on the Trinity Broadcast Network where scientists, yes SCIENTISTS, such as physicists, biochemists, university professors, etc were talking about how they couldnt explain the many micro-machines of life...such as the many parts of the protein synthesis chain, etc etc. they said "the truth is there...science must be able to open up and accept the truth for what it is...that these parts were DESIGNED!" ummm WRONG! they fail, and will continue to fail, simply because science does NOT accept what cannot be proven by the scientific method! when you start talking about a designer or creator you start venturing into the metaphysical realm, which is not what science is about. i dont know how those guys got their degrees...they totally missed out on elementary school science basics!

same goes with irreducible complexity...sorry, but many of the "biomachines" and different mechanisms used by life (blood clotting for instance, or the eye!) have been explained many times over. how they evolved and changed and became what they are now.

for anyone interested in this stuff...i point you to http://www.youtube.com/cdk007 he has many videos on evolution and on debunking irreducible complexity and the design argument.

 

[King Crimson]

I had to force myself to not read this thread. This topic always ends up aggravating me.

I will say this: I think as long as you live with love in your heart and you're a good person, nothing else matters.

You're scwered dude. On with the knee pads and keep it real.

 

[Bob Savage]

i dont know how those guys got their degrees...they totally missed out on elementary school science basics!

But let's not see only one side of this. I routinely see metaphysics and science combined by secular scientists with an agenda. As you're indicating, however, science can only attempt to evaluate what happened from the point of the bang, accident, creation, whatever you want to call it. The discussion of what caused it is outside of the scientific method.

 

[riffy]

i dont know how those guys got their degrees...they totally missed out on elementary school science basics!

But let's not see only one side of this. I routinely see metaphysics and science combined by secular scientists with an agenda. As you're indicating, however, science can only attempt to evaluate what happened from the point of the bang, accident, creation, whatever you want to call it. The discussion of what caused it is outside of the scientific method.

Absolutely correct... Bringing in evolution, the Big Bang and any other scientific proof, to a purely religious discussion is a dead end. Science is not dedicated to things it can't 'see, touch, or smell'. It is dedicated to observable phenomenon.

That said, I do believe in God with all my heart, and if I am a wacko because of that belief, I will wear the t-shirt if I can find it.

Gary

 

[shredhead666]

Nope, "gods" are just a figment of people's imagination to try and give them hope after they die. They want to believe so bad that something good happens to them after they die, that they start to fool themselves. People have been doing it for centuries, worshipping the Sun, Zeus, Poseidon, Moses, Allah, Vishnu, Ishvara, Jesus, whatever. It's all the same thing, and it's all complete and utter horseshit.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! Live life to its fullest while you're alive, because once you're out, that's the end.

 

[riffy]

Nope, "gods" are just a figment of people's imagination to try and give them hope after they die. They want to believe so bad that something good happens to them after they die, that they start to fool themselves. People have been doing it for centuries, worshipping the Sun, Zeus, Poseidon, Moses, Allah, Vishnu, Ishvara, Jesus, whatever. It's all the same thing, and it's all complete and utter horseshit.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! Live life to its fullest while you're alive, because once you're out, that's the end.

Funny, despite all you said, and you have a right to your opinion for sure, the thing you assume is because someone believes in God, they don't live a full life. And you are assuming that according to your post above.

I do live a VERY full life and I know many others that believe not only in what I call God but many other religions do as well. Your assumption is
completely based upon a fallacy.

 

[shredhead666]

Nope, "gods" are just a figment of people's imagination to try and give them hope after they die. They want to believe so bad that something good happens to them after they die, that they start to fool themselves. People have been doing it for centuries, worshipping the Sun, Zeus, Poseidon, Moses, Allah, Vishnu, Ishvara, Jesus, whatever. It's all the same thing, and it's all complete and utter horseshit.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! Live life to its fullest while you're alive, because once you're out, that's the end.

Funny, despite all you said, and you have a right to your opinion for sure, the thing you assume is because someone believes in God, they don't live a full life. And you are assuming that according to your post above.

I do live a VERY full life and I know many others that believe not only in what I call God but many other religions do as well. Your assumption is
completely based upon a fallacy.

I make absolutely no such assumptions, but I guess hey people read what they want to read. BTW, your avatar is still the most amazing thing I've seen, even after a year or so since i've seen that pic, it still makes me drool. Haha.

 

[riffy]

I make absolutely no such assumptions, but I guess hey people read what they want to read. BTW, your avatar is still the most amazing thing I've seen, even after a year or so since i've seen that pic, it still makes me drool. Haha.

Bro,
She still makes me drool as well...

 

[soc_monki]

i dont know how those guys got their degrees...they totally missed out on elementary school science basics!

But let's not see only one side of this. I routinely see metaphysics and science combined by secular scientists with an agenda. As you're indicating, however, science can only attempt to evaluate what happened from the point of the bang, accident, creation, whatever you want to call it. The discussion of what caused it is outside of the scientific method.

that is true...you cant say who caused it (or what). but thats not what science is there for...its only there to try and explain things that are physical. any scientist who mixes supernatural (or metaphysical) concepts in with science, other than saying "this is how i believe it came to be" isnt worth the ink his degree is printed on IMO. like Michael Behe...he may be a brilliant scientist, but in the end hes a retard because he totally believes his narrow view of irreducible complexity, rather than looking at the evidence set before him as to how these "irreducibly complex" mechanisms came to be. that right there is a big neon sign showing a scientist (albeit not secular, but still a well-known scientist) who is combining two things that shouldnt be combined...he should know that, but seems to overlook it.

but...if people want to believe that a deity started the big bang and guided all of creation and evolution, that is fine with me. i have no problem with that. i only have a problem when people start mixing those concepts in with something that cant prove one way or another that supernatural phenomena exist and say that "its the truth". far from it IMO. its kinda like politics...our country was founded with religious freedom in mind. choose your religion, and you wont be persecuted because of it. well, that hasnt worked very well because too many people cant detatch themselves from their own beliefs so they can work on things for the good of everyone. not all of the United States is Christian, and the big wigs need to start realizing that and truly start practicing the separation of church and state.

thats getting too far off the topic though, i think LOL in short i believe that people can believe however they want, but when you start saying something is truth, when you honestly cannot prove that it is or isnt, then you shouldnt say anything. i can say all day long "there isnt a god" because that is how i believe...but honestly i cant say that without a doubt the truth is there is no god. i just cant do that, and i wont do that.

 

[Cflat96]

Everyone in this thread is wrong. The answer is obvious. It's a combination of both sides. The Bible IS Truth. That crazy shit in the Bible DID happen. It's just the translation that is incorrect. And they will return.

 

[hairychris444]

i dont know how those guys got their degrees...they totally missed out on elementary school science basics!

But let's not see only one side of this. I routinely see metaphysics and science combined by secular scientists with an agenda. As you're indicating, however, science can only attempt to evaluate what happened from the point of the bang, accident, creation, whatever you want to call it. The discussion of what caused it is outside of the scientific method.

Aha! That's where you're wrong!!

NOTHING is outside the realms of reason, hence scientific enquiry. Science is applied reason (more or less) so the argument you give here can be taken as 'where do we draw the line where we no longer accept reason as a tool?' Those who believe that reason is the correct way of interpreting the universe say that there is no line, and this, to all intents and purposes, pushes religious metaphysics out of the picture.



The discussion of 'what' is fundamental to the universe. We can look at this in a different way. We can ask the question 'who is qualified to search for the what?' Scientists look at the 'how', and through this we may (or may not) discover the 'what' behind it. I'll ask this question - what makes priests qualified to search for the 'what' when in many cases they have no comprehension of the 'how' that we interact with on a daily basis? Are they, dare I say it, simply speculating?



EDIT: In case I just babbled here, I'll put it another way. I think that reason can be applied universally, religious people don't (they suspend reason where their religion comes into play). This is an illustration of why, fundamentally, science and religion will always be fighting to some degree. Faith - in a religious sense - can only live in the gaps of science. Where empirical knowledge exists, faith is not required. No gaps in knowledge, no room for faith, and no room for supernatural belief! If you look at things this way you can see why there are attacks on science and scientists... by their very existence they are shrinking those holes in which faith lurks...!

 

[ejecta]

In case I just babbled here, I'll put it another way. I think that reason can be applied universally, religious people don't (they suspend reason where their religion comes into play).

And I thought Christains were the closeminded judgmental ones. Like Ive always said and Ralph said earlier there are those in both sides who are close minded hypocrites that dont open mindedly look at things. ON BOTH SIDES. In my personal experience I know many religious people who use sound reason behind what the believe and the same could be said about those who arnt religious. But when you make blanket broad sweeping stereo types that are no where close to reality you know you are dealing with someone who only wants to look at evidence of what the WANT to believe.

 

[hairychris444]

In case I just babbled here, I'll put it another way. I think that reason can be applied universally, religious people don't (they suspend reason where their religion comes into play).

And I thought Christains were the closeminded judgmental ones. Like Ive always said and Ralph said earlier there are those in both sides who are close minded hypocrites that dont open mindedly look at things. ON BOTH SIDES. In my personal experience I know many religious people who use sound reason behind what the believe and the same could be said about those who arnt religious. But when you make blanket broad sweeping stereo types that are no where close to reality you know you are dealing with someone who only wants to look at evidence of what the WANT to believe.

Hehe, I get your point... But I'm not sure that it's valid!

Why do I say this? Well, look at a lot of things that you believe if you are a Christian (OK, not putting much here, and I'll try to avoid literal interpretation) - for instance the virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Christ, heaven, hell... - that REASON tells us are either hugely unlikely or actually impossible if we assume the regularity of natural law, or are concepts that we have no way of empirically knowing at all.

The virgin birth is impossible if we know human biology. For this to happen, there has to be a PHYSICAL causation (eggs and so-on are physical entities and respond to the relevant physical laws) that somehow bypasses the normal route of physics, chemistry and biology. And this happened only once in human history. Hm. You're trying to apply an unknown causation to a known physical result - namely a child - of a process that we are intimately knowledgable of across many mammallian species. Applying Occam's wonderful Razor we ask what's more likely - a complete cessation of natural law in a single case of the species' history, or the kid had a natural father and the story has been exaggerated... Probability says the latter. REASON, via our current knowledge of the physical universe, says the latter.

The concept of hell, say, is even worse. At least a baby is physical even if the parentage is in question. Hell is, as far as I can see, pure speculation. So.. you only go there, incorporeally not physically, when you die. No-one has died & come back with any description of what they experienced. In fact, we don't even know whether we have a disconnected spiritual 'self' that's seperate from the body. And PLEASE don't throw in a reference to the resurrection here as that falls into the same questions as the above.

These concepts are either unlikely, illogical, or fundamentally unknowable.

How can you claim to be completely RATIONAL if you accept concepts like this UNQUESTIONINGLY??? It doesn't add up. Which is why people with beliefs often claim that there's something that REASON cannot comprehend. Sorry, not true, reason is not only our mental tool, but is the entire toolbox by which we view the world. You might not want to question, or might disparage humanity's natural gifts, but I don't. Question everything....!

Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. Why? I want proof for everything if I enquire into it, or at least a comprehensible, uncontradictory line of reasoning. This applies to my interests in physical stuff too... The problem that religion has is that it can't answer my questions, and then goes on to imply that my questions are invalid ("god did it, just believe"). You can't convert me by reason? Forget it.

EDIT: Saying that God did it means that you don't know how it happened. Ignorance is fine, you can't have knowledge without it, but invoking the deity warns off investigation. You might not see the implication, but an unspoken follow-up to 'God did it' is 'and don't questions his will'. I'm not being paranoid, by the way, just look at the Catholic church's history, evangelism's self declared war on science, and plenty of other example across many religions!

As a coda, I am aware that there's a lot of unknown things in the universe. This does not excuse us to lose our heads when we run across it.

 

[ejecta]

EDIT: Saying that God did it means that you don't know how it happened. Ignorance is fine, you can't have knowledge without it, but invoking the deity warns off investigation. You might not see the implication, but an unspoken follow-up to 'God did it' is 'and don't questions his will'. I'm not being paranoid, by the way, just look at the Catholic church's history, evangelism's self declared war on science, and plenty of other example across many religions!

As a coda, I am aware that there's a lot of unknown things in the universe. This does not excuse us to lose our heads when we run across it.

Again to say just because you believe God was the cause of something doesnt make your brain shut down. A good a friend of mine's physics teacher was the head of the Physics dept at the University and he was a believer. My cousin's husband is very talented surgeon and she is a pathologist and very strong in her fleid, both are believers. I have hads serveral mentors, one who has his doctorate form Vanderbuilt University also a believer. I actually read a study once that polled college professors and thier beliefs. The were far more believers in science field than any other. The one with the most non believers was the philosophy dept. What made me research that was I read qoute that said "If I want to find a Christian I'll go to the physics dept and if I want to find an athiest I'll go to the Philosophy dept." Again to make such a broad stroke of people who believe in God and say that your brain shuts down due to that belief is just not true.