And that's all well and good... I'm perfectly open the idea that there is some being so advanced that it seems like a deity, and that we are just currently ignorant of its existence. That's very different from being convinced that one (or many) MUST exist, especially how they are described in the various holy books. I'll be happy to believe in a god when there's a reason to believe in one. Until then... pass. Same goes for dragons. Besides, if it's a situation like the one you describe, "believing" or not "believing" has zero impact on my life, or anyone's, really... beyond maybe making them feel better about their insignificant little lives.
You're right but I enjoy reading all these "theologians" talking about a God they know nothing about. I'm not at all surprised by these thoughts and comments.
How do we know they aren't right? What's to differentiate the beliefs of an armchair theologian from a "real" theologian?
I'm right that you don't contribute anything? I'm sure you're not surprised. You have nothing to say. You're not even an armchair theologian. You're more like a catbox theologian. You have nothing but dry turds to contribute. gOD must have a special pile of etherial kitty litter in "heaven" set aside for you.
the problem is the "reason" you are waiting for when there is no reason currently not believe in one considering there has been zero scientific evidence to show how the universe, or infinite multiverses, began naturally out of nothing. point being your belief is as logical or rational as the belief in a God, as neither are based on scientific knowledge or any proven hypotheses, and is merely the conclusion that you have come to that makes you most comfortable. the point I am getting at is that it isn't inherently any more rational or scientific to not believe in God as it is to believe in God. obviously if the reasoning of your argument for or against is weak than your belief isn't logical and rational, but then we are talking about the specifics of a persons argument and rationale, not the broader concept of the actual belief. not all believers are irrational literal creationists, and not all non-believers are hysterics like Richard Dawkins. but what seems to happen is that non-believers try to paint a pretty broad stroke of believers based on the hysterics of literal creationists, and ignore that non-believers are dependent on just as much anecdotal evidence as believers are.
It's not complicated or hard to understand. There's an entire Book that reveals the real nature and true character of God. What amazes me is that so many speculate without reading.
Given the choice between inventing something in the absence of any evidence and not inventing something, not inventing something with zero evidence is clearly the more logical and rational position, sorry. There is a clear difference between believing in something with no factual evidence and trying to piece together an explanation based on observable evidence. Having any given hypothesis "proven" is not necessary. The specific result of any given experiment is less important than the process that led to the results. It's the process that allows - in the aggregate - for greater understanding of how the universe works.
Plenty have read that book and realized the closest thing to the "real nature and true character" of gOD that it affords and wonder why there are zealots who can't really understand it. What amazes me is that so many crusade about the wORD without understanding what it says.
you're absolutely right. of course, that position is 100% dependent on proof that the belief is invented to say with such cavalier. I agree. and as we stand right now, observable evidence has only revealed an extremely minimal amount of evidence of the physical processes that occurred that have shaped our universe, not the physical event that began the process to begin with, so drawing the conclusion as natural or divine lacks the physical evidence necessary to do so. so, if your interest is in piecing together an explanation based on observable evidence, it inherently requires you to avoid a conclusion completely because no observable evidence has been presented in the history of mankind that points to the precise specific event that began our universe, or the entire infinite collections of the multiverse that we have no observable evidence of to begin with. your criteria requires you to say "I don't know" but I prefer x because of y.
I didn't ever negate or contradict myself. I said I choose to believe in things that are either supported by factual evidence proving their existence or otherwise have logical, reasonable, believable reasons that I should believe in them. None of those criteria are met by any religious version of god that I know of. The fact that god can't be proven not to exist doesn't contradict the fact that there is very little credible evidence to suggest he does. As I already said earlier, science will never disprove god's existence. But the inaccuracies in scripts like the bible should be seen as an indication of how accurate they might be about other things, like their accounts of who god is, what he looks like, what he wants, and whether he even exists. There are many things that I don't believe in that could possibly exist, but very little suggesting they do. I'm sure the same is true of everyone. I just don't make exceptions for god like many other people choose to do. Don't be stupid. I didn't say they aren't real. I said the fact that religion can provide them doesn't make god real. I understand how religion can influence someone's life in many positive ways, and I'm not trying to take that away from anyone. But that has no connection to whether god exists or not. Placebo medications make people feel better too.
