You are correct. As I personally have said a few times on this forum, science has limited purpose and power. Consciousness cannot be observed, and therefore inherently cannot be modeled by science. Similarly, if there is nothing observable to indicate what occurred before "the big bang", science will never model that either.

I do not understand, though, how your own existence is proof of God. You are saying: If I exist, then God exists. To me this seems to be the fundamental assumption made by theists in which lies the flaw of theism. It seems like a rather arbitrary assumption. Explain to me how you derive the existence of God from the existence of oneself, please. If you can show me this, I'll definitely become a theist.

Also, "scientist" is an abstract word... a word meant to refer to people who use science. It does not mean that they use only science in their approach to the world. Logic, philosophy, humanity, love, intrigue, etc all play a role as well. Science is merely their approach to determining facts and making predictions about the world itself. Many scientists are philosophers who ponder questions such as the existence of God, the nature of consciousness, or the beginning of the universe. They simply do not look to science for answers to these questions, because that is beyond its scope.

I sure as hell am not willing to die for my beliefs.

I have no reason to believe that God exists, but if someone held a gun to my head and told me "Admit that God exists or die!", I'd shout "PRAISE THE LORD! HE DOES EXIST!". Professed beliefs are really not a big deal. Beliefs themselves aren't even that big a deal, in and of themselves. Belief alone does nothing but serve as a guide for your own actions.

If a person held a gun to your head and demanded that you denounce the existence of God to save your life, do so! It doesn't mean you don't believe in God; it just means you don't want them to know.

One of the young students who was killed at Columbine high school in Colorado several years back was approached by one of the gun wielding lunatics and asked "does anyone here believe in Christ?" This was in the school library. She answered yes. She was shot for her trouble.

That dear friend Ixtellor, was an act of pure unadulterated evil.

I don't want to hear the mumbo jumbo scientific psychology, "Daddy didn't give enough attention" b.s., the young man was under the influence of pure evil.

If there's not a Heaven and if there's no God to take that young woman's soul and Love her for proclaiming Christ in her last action on this Earth? well frankly, I'll be glad when I die then, because if there's no true Justice for Evil, than Life itself is amoral and deserves what it gets in the end.

Extinction.

I have never held back for fear of causing offence nor should you!

I may not agree with you but I will stand next to you to defend your right to say it?

I just think you should use the first person present tense, then it will not sound like preaching to the converted

I think people fear living more than they fear dying.

My opinion at least.

Fair enough.

But would he not believe in life after death with the benefits like virgins if he was a muslim, or harp playing naked boys if he were a christian and help his assailant

Eh? That response makes little sense, and has almost no relevance to the post.

If that's exactly what Muslims believe, and he's Muslim... then yes, he would believe that. And if Christians believe in harp-playing naked boys, which I doubt most do, and he's Christian, then yes, he would believe that. But what does this have to do with my post? And why would he help his assailant?

you know, I never use scientific way to prove my religion. I did study mathematics, I placed 60 in Student Mathematic Olympiad in Iran when I was 15, I surely know the logical way, and I use it everyday in university to prove things. I was atheist once, I born in a rather atheist family. my faith is my personal experience. I can't say how I got my faith. I couldn't find a need, and didn't feel God back then. I just felt another way. it was like a new tool to understand the world beyond logic. I can't explain it to you, but I hope that you will become a theist.

I mean those who lead the first lines of science in today's world by "scientist".
ALL OF THEM, even religious ones, never take religions and spiritual issues serious enough to start researching on them.

__________________

First of all, I didn't ask for a scientific way to prove the existence of God: There is none, since God is unobservable. I asked for a logical argument/proof/deduction that explains "I exist, therefore God exists". Experience is never justification in itself, although sometimes it leads to revelations, such as "Aha! So that is the logical argument for God's existence!" But you seem not to have one. It seems you just felt like believing in God due to some emotional experience, and on a whim, did so.

Logic is ultimately just organized thought. Its scope of usage goes beyond merely understanding the world but also into the realm of philosophical questions (such as the existence of god, the nature of consciousness, etc). To be illogical is to be unthinking, driven by emotion and instinct.

Be careful not to lump everything non-religious together. Science, logic, math... they're not one and the same.

Actually, religion is a topic of study in science. Religion is an observable phenomenon and as such, science can model it. The claims of religions, on the other hand, are either A) supported by science, B) shown to be inconsistent with observations, or C) deemed out of the scope of science.

In the case of A, there aren't any issues. In the case of B, this is where science and religion clashes the most: Religious people tend to prefer the facts of their faith over the facts of the senses, whereas scientists always favor the observed facts over current beliefs. In the case of C, if you want science to find you answers, give up: It can't. Science will never prove that God exists, unless he makes himself observable.