Only a fool would also not obey God's simple laws yet believe God exists.


Someone who says there is no God is better off at least compared to someone who says there is God but has broken all the 10 commandments and will do worse. You are either totally for God or totally against God, so if you say there is God, please let your every step reflect that.

How foolish of you to think that

Free:

only a fool would say there is no God

@nferyn

abeg ur pardon??

what i said is the truth
n' i will say it again,
only a fool would say there aint no God

Free:

@nferyn

abeg your pardon??

what i said is the truth

I guess your concept of truth must be very different from mine. Needless to say that your [i]truth [/i]is extremely arrogant as well

Free:

n' i will say it again,
only a fool would say there aint no God

Maybe I should consider it a compliment, to be called a fool by you

The reason I don't believe in God is simply because there is absolutely no evidence pointing in the direction of the existence of a god.
I tend to argue about the existence of Gods for a couple of reasons. What really catches my interest is the fact that many intelligent people, quite a lot of whom are far more intelligent than I am, believe in God, even though it flies in the face of rationality, both on empirical as on epistemological grounds. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to align on the one hand belief in a deity and on the other hand apply rational considerations to most other aspects of life. Religious apologetics isn't really rational, but only a weak form rationalisation; the question those apologetics should ask themselves is not whether or not their religious dogma can be aligned with the findings of modern science, but rather whether or not their interpretation of the facts is the most probable and reasonable among all possible explanations for the same facts. Ockham's razor should be rigorously applied to all possible explanations of the facts.

As the evidence is lacking, the only basis for god-belief is faith, which, by it's very essence, i.e. belief without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence, sets itself apart from reason. You cannot arrive at truth without basing yourself on rationality, because without rationality, truth itself becomes a concept without meaning. Once you accept that way of thinking as respectable, you effectively open the floodgates to all kinds of religiously motivated lunacy, as the essence of that lunacy cannot be questioned. Faith does not deserve respect because it fosters uncritical, unquestioning obedience to dogma.

The main reason why I argue against theistic beliefs is that the attitude of belief without evidence can - and regularly does - have some very nasty and undesirable side-effects. It is a mode of thinking that prevents honest inquiry and dissociates beliefs from their consequences, especially for those not agreeing with a specific religious worldview. The terrorists flying those planes in the WTC on 9-11 truly and honestly believed they were doing God's will. Even the moderately religious demand respect for faith, thereby creating a fertile breeding ground for the religious fanatics and lunatics.

Obviously modern science is not the end all and be all of our existance on earth and even Einstein believed in a God though not of the form most christains for example subscribe to. Human beings all through history have always needed more than science and technology to define and ascribe meaning to our lives. Science does not speak to how your fellow man should be treated, nor does it create laws or define morality within our society. Just as the zealots crashed planes in the WTC on faith, others have done numerous good things on faith, such as Desmond Tutu's actions leading in part to the liberation of SOuth Africans from the racist Dutch Afrikaans.

Modern Science allowed rubber to be extracted by King Leopold in the belgian congo while millions where killed. Just as Religious faith has created evil in the world, so has technology and modern science been used to justify the killings on millions.

Science can never prove to us empirically that we have to treat our fellow human beings justly because science anwsers questions about physical occurences in nature. You think science will ever answer why hitler killed 6 million jews or why King Leopold's rule led the the extermination of millions of Congolese all in the name of profit?

How can u ever say there is no God? just step out of your room and look around you, there is more than enough proof for you. look at the sky suspended above,look at the sea, flowers, mountains, the sun, beauty of the moon at night, animals, just look at yourself! and so much more. you think you evolved from monkey and monkey from what? how do you explain all this, please how do you. my dear, THERE IS GOD, a mighty one. i look around me and just marvel. God is really great.

Pls someone tell it to 'em atheists. I keep banging it in they ears but it's like they've got selective thinking. You don't put behavioural observance and faith in the same box. As such, u can't use behavioural observance to explain faith and vice-versa.

Then alluding/mistaking "logic" to/with behavioural observance just makes it get all sh*ttier.

More l8r. . .

shango:

Obviously modern science is not the end all and be all of our existance on earth and even Einstein believed in a God though not of the form most christains for example subscribe to.

Einstein wasn't even a deist. A pantheist at most, but that would be very debatable.

shango:

Human beings all through history have always needed more than science and technology to define and ascribe meaning to our lives. Science does not speak to how your fellow man should be treated, nor does it create laws or define morality within our society.

Obviously, as you rightly point out, science is mute on these topics. The only thing to ask oneself if religion does all of that. For example, religious morality is only a codification of an ingrained natural morality. Religion is not the source of that morality.

shango:

Just as the zealots crashed planes in the WTC on faith, others have done numerous good things on faith, such as Desmond Tutu's actions leading in part to the liberation of SOuth Africans from the racist Dutch Afrikaans.

We should just wonder what the balance of the good and the bad is. I tend to think the bad outweighs the good and even if religion were to cause people to be more moral (a statement that is not supported by any data), that still wouldn't say anything about whether or not the claims of religion are true. Delusions stay delusions, regardless of their utility.

shango:

Modern Science allowed rubber to be extracted by King Leopold in the belgian congo while millions where killed.

It wasn't modern science that caused these atrocities.

shango:

Just as Religious faith has created evil in the world, so has technology and modern science been used to justify the killings on millions.

Science had little to do with the justification. Technology, a derivate of science, not science itself allowed far more efficiency in whatever people wanted to do, whether good or evil.

shango:

Science can never prove to us empirically that we have to treat our fellow human beings justly because science anwsers questions about physical occurences in nature.

But it can answer questions about causes of human behaviour and this can allow us to counter the evil aspects of human nature.

shango:

You think science will ever answer why hitler killed 6 million jews or why King Leopold's rule led the the extermination of millions of Congolese all in the name of profit?

These questions are too specific to answer. What drives an individual to do something is too multi-faceted to give a correct anwer to. Only on an aggregate level can this kind of behaviour be studied.

gbade. x:

Please someone tell it to 'em atheists. I keep banging it in they ears but it's like they've got selective thinking. You don't put behavioural observance and faith in the same box. As such, u can't use behavioural observance to explain faith and vice-versa.

Then alluding/mistaking "logic" to/with behavioural observance just makes it get all sh*ttier.

More l8r. . .

In that case, why don't you explain the epistemological value of faith? How do you arrive at truth through faith?

Wumine:

How can u ever say there is no God? just step out of your room and look around you, there is more than enough proof for you. look at the sky suspended above,look at the sea, flowers, mountains, the sun, beauty of the moon at night, animals, just look at yourself! and so much more. you think you evolved from monkey and monkey from what? how do you explain all this, please how do you. my dear, THERE IS GOD, a mighty one. i look around me and just marvel. God is really great.

Please don't wallow in your ignorance. All of what you point out is easily explained by science. Of course learning that science can be hard and is just too cumbersome for many people.
A simple introduction into evolutionary theory can be found here.
Refutations of creationists arguments can be found here

It wasn't modern science that caused these atrocities.

It cetainly was Modern science that led to these atrocities. If King Leopold did not want to extract rubber he would not have subjugated millions of Congolese. Science doesnt occur in a vaccum and is always applied like you said for technological purposes. Science and Technology fused with raw capitalism, IMHO, is responsible for the atrocities you Europeans have perpetuated for the past half millenia. What good is the science of extracting and refining rubber to make material goods if it cannot be put to good use or cannot be applied technologically? Science has to be applied, scientists do not make discoveries for the sake of making discoveries. The Atom bomb wasnt created to understand the complexities of nuclear fission. Einstein figured that out pretty quickly afterwards and regretted his contribution to that field of study.

We should just wonder what the balance of the good and the bad is. I tend to think the bad outweighs the good and even if religion were to cause people to be more moral (a statement that is not supported by any data), that still wouldn't say anything about whether or not the claims of religion are true. Delusions stay delusions, regardless of their utility.

And I would argue that the APPLICATIOn of science, much like the application or practice of Religion, has led to way WAY more and evil atrocities than religion in the last 500 years. The science of processing sugar and cotton justified carting Africans like chattel with zero empathy my thousands of Europeans. Ot say the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Science had little to do with the justification. Technology, a derivate of science, not science itself allowed far more efficiency in whatever people wanted to do, whether good or evil.

Thats just silly. the Science of internal combustion which leads to efficieny of automobiles is destroying our planet by increasing CO2 emmissions leading to global warming. The Science itself allowed efficiency in one aspect while destroying another aspect. Peoples blind faith in Science is what causes crap like global warming. A narrow and focused attention on a simple task at hand without trying to understand its ramifications. Sure the science in of itself isnt the cause but it leads to or can lead to disaster in alot of cases.

These questions are too specific to answer. What drives an individual to do something is too multi-faceted to give a correct anwer to. Only on an aggregate level can this kind of behaviour be studied.

Yes it is tooo multifaceted, and my point is science will never explain all facets, as the human being and our world cannot just be explained in totality by science. As you said even people way smarter than you subscribe to this thought.

deleted!

Conclusion

Believe in god if you want but - No proof exists (as if I'm surprised), or logical thinking offering any sort of explanation out there.

It is simply a comforting thought for a certain type of needy person.

Thankyou all.

Is there God? Should I believe in the Bible? the Quran? Why are people religious?

Everything a Christian believes, everything originates from the bible. Right? So, let's start from there. The Bible.

Who wrote the Bible? Who compiled the various scriptures? Which scriptures were left out and why? Why was the Bible compiled? What languages were the original Books and when were the translations done?

If indeed the Bible is the word of God, then the answers to these questions will help us to get started.

From what i've been taught, i've read in the Bible and personal experiences.
I'm convinced that there is a God who i firmly believe in, Who would guide, protect, bless and fulfill my dreams if i'm faithful to him.

Maybe you don't have a God, but i sure do

You didn't create yourself(thatz definite), so if the big bang created you, then maybe the Big bang/sound is your God.

God reveals himself to different people in different ways, he wouldn't appear to everyone for them to see and believe that he not only exists but saves.

From individual experiences/encounters you'll find out that people have met God but may never have seen him, his power has been felt in their Lives.

A point of note: There is no God i've heard of that showed himself to his worshippers, those who believe in amadioha or ogun only have shrines and statues which probably represents who they serve but they cannot tell you what he looks like.
gods send prophets to theirs followers to represent them and never come down themselves.

Note: I'm speaking from my personal experience, another fella would have a different version of the manifestation of God's power in his/her life


Deathadder, my question for you is: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE BIG BANG?
If yes WHAT DOES HE/SHE LOOK LIKE?

I must say i am impressed with the quality of posts on this topic. Well as for me i believe there is a GOD though i have not seen him and would have loved to.
Come to think of it, we humans have always tried to tempt GOD to prove his existence not to us personally but so that everyone can see and testify to it.
It was this that led to the israelites quest to find out about HIS existence by trying to build a skyscaper that could touch the high heaven but as my bible told me this was not be be as GOD in his infinite mercies created a language dispute amongst them.
Typical case in this modern world is the CLONING of different species of animals,

carp

* 1963, in China, embryologist Tong Dizhou cloned a fish. He published the findings in an obscure Chinese science journal which was never translated into English. [2]

[edit] mice

* Mice were the first successfully cloned mammals; in 1986, USSR's scientists Chaylakhyan, Veprencev, Sviridova, Nikitin had mice "Masha" cloned. Research was published in the magazine "Biofizika" volume ХХХII, issue 5 of 1987.[3]. However, the cloning was done from an embryo cell, while the sheep Dolly in 1997 was cloned from an adult cell.
* First from adult cells, Cumulina, was born in 1997 at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa in the laboratory of Ryuzo Yanagimachi using the Honolulu technique.
* over a dozen as of 2002

[edit] sheep

* From early embryonic cells by Steen Willadsen (1986). Megan and Morag cloned from differentiated embryonic cells in June 1995.
* Dolly (1996)
* Polly and Molly (Transgenic Clones, July 1997)
* Royana (2006) cloned in Royan Research institute in Isfahan, Iran.

[edit] pig

* 5 Scottish PPL piglets (Millie, Christa, Alexis, Carrel, and Dotcom) (March 2000)
* Xena (female, August 2000)

[edit] gaur

* Noah (male, January 2001) [4]

[edit] cattle

* Millie and Emma were two jersey cows cloned at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. (females, 2001)
* Alpha and Beta (males, 2001)
* Ten more jersey cows were cloned at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. (females, 2002)
* endangered cow in Brazil (2005)

[edit] cat

* CopyCat "CC" (female, late 2001)
* Little Nicky (2004, was the first cat cloned for commercial reasons)

[edit] rabbit

* in France and North Korea independently (March-April, 2003)
* Human-rabbit hybrid in China (August, 2003)

[edit] mule

* Idaho Gem (male, May 2003)
* Utah Pioneer (male, June 2003)
* Idaho Star (male, July 2003)

[edit] deer

* Dewey (2003)

[edit] horse

* Prometea (female, 2003)
* Paris Texas (male, March 2005)

[edit] rat

* Ralph (male, 2003)

[edit] fruit flies

(2004)

[edit] dog

* dog: Korean Scientists clone an Afghan Hound named Snuppy. 2005 [5] [6]

[edit] Animals that have been cloned using embryo splitting

[edit] rhesus monkey

* Tetra (female, January 2000) [7]

[edit] Note

An Asian scientist, embryologist Tong Dizhou, cloned a fish in 1963, 33 years before Dolly the Sheep. He published the findings in an obscure Chinese science journal which was never translated into English. [8]




Despite this grand act by different scientists, i still believe there is a GOD because even during the good old days of our ancestors like Oracle said, They believed in a God which peeps like oduduwa, Obatala, and the likes came down from and goes by the name OLODUMARE.

Anyway much as the facts do not actually butress the point of the existence of GOD, the mechanism of the human nature and structure doesn't not go along with your theory of THE BIG BANG, I don't think that could have structured the beautiful and careful creation of man talkless of a woman. Critically we are the work of an artist and creatively carved out which implies that something somewhere created us and that should be GOD.

I am Out

"@ nferyn'
you are the ignorant one my dear. i will not poison my mind with any science junk. your saying i cant understand science doesnt really bother me. you are entitled to your opinion.

@ nferyn,
See who talks of science, you talk as if you have ever had any contributions to the science in its entirety.

nferyn:

Please don't wallow in your ignorance. All of what you point out is easily explained by science. Of course learning that science can be hard and is just too cumbersome for many people.
A simple introduction into evolutionary theory can be found here.
Refutations of creationists arguments can be found here

Question1. Tell me what significant contribution you have ever made to science aside from sitting inside a laboratory allday performing an experiment that the great scientist of old have done.

Question2. Do you know that even Isaac Newton declared the kowledge of a God or you want to know of Faraday the father of electricity? or Charles Darwin?

You give us links as if you were the originator of it, are they not the same atheist like yourself who brought out such links. Look all around you, and tell me how your stupidity made you not to see there is a God out there.

Oracle:

Deathadder, my question for you is: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE BIG BANG?
If yes WHAT DOES HE/SHE LOOK LIKE?

The Big Bang isn't a being nor an entity, it is simply a description of an occurence billions of years ago. What you've asked is similar to asking who the reaction between 2 carbon and 6 hydrogen molecules look like.

fellow:

I must say i am impressed with the quality of posts on this topic. Well as for me i believe there is a GOD though i have not seen him and would have loved to.
Come to think of it, we humans have always tried to tempt GOD to prove his existence not to us personally but so that everyone can see and testify to it.
It was this that led to the israelites quest to find out about HIS existence by trying to build a skyscaper that could touch the high heaven but as my bible told me this was not be be as GOD in his infinite mercies created a language dispute amongst them.

Are you sure it was the Israelites? Anyway, it doesn't look like different languages developed in that way.

Typical case in this modern world is the CLONING of different species of animals,

I get the point you're trying to make, but I wouldn't put much stock in the obscure journal claims. I also don't think it's playing "God" (whatever that means) it's simply finding, exploring and doing things.

[b]Despite this grand act by different scientists, i still believe there is a GOD because even during the good old days of our ancestors like Oracle said, They believed in a God which peeps like oduduwa, Obatala, and the likes came down from and goes by the name OLODUMARE.

Wouldn't that be evidence of Gods getting created to serve roles people needed to be filled?

Anyway much as the facts do not actually butress the point of the existence of GOD, the mechanism of the human nature and structure doesn't not go along with your theory of THE BIG BANG, I don't think that could have structured the beautiful and careful creation of man talkless of a woman. Critically we are the work of an artist and creatively carved out which implies that something somewhere created us and that should be GOD.

The Big Bang describes the expansion of the Universe; the theory of evolution explains human nature and structure and attraction to females. By the way, my head hurts, my eyesight isn't great, and my back needs tweaking, my throat pipes keeps getting congealed with phlegm. Can I sue this artist you call God?

I am Out[/b]
[quote][/quote]

Why not?

mrpataki:

@ nferyn,
See who talks of science, you talk as if you have ever had any contributions to the science in its entirety.
Question1. Tell me what significant contribution you have ever made to science aside from sitting inside a laboratory allday performing an experiment that the great scientist of old have done.

Wouldn't that be a contribution in itself? Repeating experiments that great scientists of old have done, could yield better understanding that could be transferred to future generations, and even sometimes could lead to discoveries that were missed before. In fact just extolling and popularising the works of great and not so great scientists is a huge contribution in itself.

So, what contributions have you made to sceince?

Question2. Do you know that even Isaac Newton declared the kowledge of a God or you want to know of Faraday the father of electricity? or Charles Darwin?

What about Faraday and Darwin? Do you know Christiaan Huygens was very possibly not a theist? Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins don't declare the knowledge of God. Is that relevant? Probably not.

You give us links as if you were the originator of it, are they not the same atheist like yourself who brought out such links.

You're confusing atheism with science.

Look all around you, and tell me how your stupidity made you not to see there is a God out there.

OMG, you're so right. How could I have missed it?! Lightening  just streaked across the sky - I know Zeus is mad at someone; thunder roll - Thor and Fria are bowling again; maybe we'll see a rainbow tomorrow - Leprechauns are leaving pots of gold around; I have to leave soon, there's the sound of strong wind again - Amun-Ra is waxing strong again. I bid a goodnight, and now that I've seen the light - "Thus spake Zarathustra"

. . . dude, get your head out of JRR Tolkien's ass, it won't do you any good.

all i gusta say is that "it is beta to live like there is a God and die only to realise there is no God than to live like there is no God and find out later that there is, "

THE FOOL SAYS IN HIS HEART; THERE IS NO GOD!
If you say there is no God,have you ever sat down to look at the orderliness of the universe? There must definitely be a designer that caused everything to be the way they are.
People get married,they have children,we all breathe in air.
Why are living things mortal? Even if you think science can prove everything,have you ever considered how science came to be?
Matter can not create itself or destroy itself.There has to be a God,the creator of time,space and matter!

Please live your life believing there is God and later find out there is no God,as it will be too sad to repent after you die and realise He exists.

@ Kag,
Never kneew there are quite great number of pervs on this forum
Maybe we should start from the fundamentals, how your science cannot find a definite definition to ENERGY?Am sure you were told it can neither be created nor destroyed. Only God can do that.

You're confusing atheism with science.

Are they not interwoven in eachother?

An atheist tells you there is no God, a scientist believes there is God so where do they both allign? I ask you kag.

KAG:

Why not?

Wouldn't that be a contribution in itself? Repeating experiments that great scientists of old have done, could yield better understanding that could be transferred to future generations, and even sometimes could lead to discoveries that were missed before. In fact just extolling and popularising the works of great and not so great scientists is a huge contribution in itself.

So, what contributions have you made to sceince?

What about Faraday and Darwin? Do you know Christiaan Huygens was very possibly not a theist? Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins don't declare the knowledge of God. Is that relevant? Probably not.

You're confusing atheism with science.

OMG, you're so right. How could I have missed it?! Lightening  just streaked across the sky - I know Zeus is mad at someone; thunder roll - Thor and Fria are bowling again; maybe we'll see a rainbow tomorrow - Leprechauns are leaving pots of gold around; I have to leave soon, there's the sound of strong wind again - Amun-Ra is waxing strong again. I bid a goodnight, and now that I've seen the light - "Thus spake Zarathustra"

When idiots like you have eaten to the excess there is nothing they would not say just to perform their enterprise.
Good luck to your smugly ignorance

mrpataki:

@ Kag,
Never kneew there are quite great number of pervs on this forum

I'm a perv because I offered a rebuttal?

Maybe we should start from the fundamentals, how your science cannot find a definite definition to ENERGY?Am sure you were told it can neither be created nor destroyed. Only God can do that.
Are they not interwoven in eachother?

Science cannot find a definition for energy? I thought it was this: "The scientific definition of energy is the ability to do work." (source. I can't say I've heard of the defining energy controversy, maybe you could enlighten me.

As to your God creating and/or destroying energy, could you show me where or offer some evidence for her do just that?

An atheist tells you there is no God, a scientist believes there is God so where do they both allign? I ask you kag.

Atheists tell you there is no God;THEISTS tell you therre is one; scientists can belong to either group (or be agnostic).

When idiots like you have eaten to the excess there is nothing they would not say just to perform their enterprise.

Their enterprise? I have an enterpries? News to me.

Good luck to your smugly ignorance

Good luck with your smug ignorance.

Hello there, Kag and Blackadder. I have read your views and all others. I am a Believer now. I was not a few years ago. Indeed, my thoughts were somewhat similar to yours. In fact, when my father was lying very ill in a hospital bed, in early 2001, my elder brother and I took delight in evicting some people from a buidling (only about 16 by 16) which he had given them to use as a church. Our reason: Simple - They disturbed us in the morning with their singing and praying andin the evenings. Umm Hmmm. Anyways, I returned to England and in 1995 April, when God found me and chose me to follow Him, guess what I did. It is so simple and may I suggst this:

In your very quiet time and with an open heart, kneel humbly, eyes closed (so you are not distracted) and ask God to reveal Himself to you. God will surely let you know His presence. This may be done in various ways - Mine was with a hot burning sensation from my head to my , I did not even let it get to my toes as my hands were burning and I had to jump to feet in awe of the Holy One. Before I forgert, it was a rainy night, so the weather was not exactly hot.

Pls. Pls. Pls. come and be a part of God's Kingdom and family and do not let satan take you. I promise you that if you just give God that opening by accepting His Hand of Love; Grace and Forgiveness, He will NOTl et you down.

With your permission, may I put you in prayers

There is no God and that is very true.

I wont try to prove otherwise.

I wont also beg anyone to accept the fact.

but why doesn't anyone reply to this Which is better, to live like there's a God, die and found out that you've been a fool. Or to live like there's no God, die and found out that there's really a God.

A beg forget that thing. There's God. It's simple that is why minds that are very learned can't accept that fact.

If you say I have a simple mind or that I am a fool, I agree, with a 2-1 B.Tech Certificate from a reknown state university in Nigeria, four contributions to open source software, several softwares to my credit(more still coming), recognition by Sun Microsystems and Netbeans, Working at a respectable Software company, a poetry award etc, If I have a simple mind, I guess I am OK.

javarules:

There is no God and that is very true.

I wont try to prove otherwise.

I wont also beg anyone to accept the fact.

but why doesn't anyone reply to this Which is better, to live like there's a God, die and found out that you've been a fool. Or to live like there's no God, die and found out that there's really a God.

A beg forget that thing. There's God. It's simple that is why minds that are very learned can't accept that fact.

If you say I have a simple mind or that I am a fool, I agree, with a 2-1 B.Tech Certificate from a reknown state university in Nigeria, four contributions to open source software, several softwares to my credit(more still coming), recognition by Sun Microsystems and Netbeans, Working at a respectable Software company, a poetry award etc, If I have a simple mind, I guess I am OK.

You truly have some outstanding achievements. Congratulations!

I am curious as to how you come to know reliably that there is a god?

@huxley
I don't have to know reliably that there is a god because I am a god! God in my own opinion is different from god, and my believe in a God makes me a god.doesn't make sense right? yap, its too simple, your mind it too learned, it can't accept it.

There are so many things that logical thinking can't explain. Ask me for examples and i wont give you one that is far fetched. I am 27 years old, I weigh 150 pounds, I am 6'2 tall. My friend here has same configurations of body build. We both ate 50 pounds of wheat in the morning. By 12noon I am feeling hungry while my friend is not.

Now as a programmer, logically that shouldn't happen because our bodies so similarly built should consume materials at the same rate. But a biologist will now take me further to explain some other factors that makes that so. So in my programmer mind, I say its fuzzy-logic. Logically its not ok, biologically its ok.

Logically God doesn't exist, spiritually he does. Again my analogy is too simple that some minds can't just accept it.

That is it. simple things don't appeal to complex minds, as much as some people can't understand why some "fools" will believe in a God.

And so if I am a fool for believing in God, I agree. In fact I am the foolishest of them all

javarules:

@huxley
I don't have to know reliably that there is a god because I am a god! God in my own opinion is different from god, and my believe in a God makes me a god.doesn't make sense right? yap, its too simple, your mind it too learned, it can't accept it.

There are so many things that logical thinking can't explain. Ask me for examples and i wont give you one that is far fetched. I am 27 years old, I weigh 150 pounds, I am 6'2 tall. My friend here has same configurations of body build. We both ate 50 pounds of wheat in the morning. By 12noon I am feeling hungry while my friend is not.

Now as a programmer, logically that shouldn't happen because our bodies so similarly built should consume materials at the same rate. But a biologist will now take me further to explain some other factors that makes that so. So in my programmer mind, I say its fuzzy-logic. Logically its not ok, biologically its ok.

Logically God doesn't exist, spiritually he does. Again my analogy is too simple that some minds can't just accept it.

That is it. simple things don't appeal to complex minds, as much as some people can't understand why some "fools" will believe in a God.

And so if I am a fool for believing in God, I agree. In fact I am the foolishest of them all

Then what was the point flashing your logical achievements, as if to say "I am logical and clever and find nothing incompatible to harbouring a belief in god" ?.

So you agree that belief in god is irrational?

This is a topic that always ends up in lengthy discuss. Interesting discuss though. My view of the topic has always been this, when you debate the existence of God, must you not first define "God". Are you talking about the christian, islamic, hindu, traditionalist etc God? When people say that by observing the world around us there must be God I think this is another issue entirely. Certainly with the limitations of the human mind when we look at the vast complexity of the universe and the earth we think of a creator. This is simply natural, same way if you walk in a jungle and suddenly discover a factory 50 storeys high churning out motorbikes or something, immediately you say to yourself someone must have made this. The greater the complexity of what we perceive the more all powerful we assume our "God" to be.

The point really is this, our belief that there must be maker does not in any way inform us of the nature of the maker. If indeed there is a maker our limited reasoning faculties can only create an image we can somehow understand. Any christian, islamic or otherwise view of God is at the end simply human beings [b]trying [/b]to picture what the nature of the maker must be. Why can't it simply be enough to feel there may be a creator while admitting to ourselves that we may be incapable of understanding his nature and influence on our lifes?