Proof is not just what you use to convince other people. If you do not require yourself to prove to yourself before believing something, then you are being careless.

If God exists and he hid himself from us intentionally, then he didn't want us to know about him. He would know that if anyone came to the conclusion that he did exist, it was certainly not due to evidence, since he so cleverly obfuscated it.

But of course, someone's bound to guess it at some point whether he exists or not, just like if you asked a random number generator the answer to a mathematical expression, it's bound to get it right some of the time.

I ask the age old philosophical question..

Does knowledge cease to exist if the thinker of the knowledge ceases to exist?

Tree in the forest thing, just differently worded.

A rock does not perceive itself as influenced by gravity or it's place in the Universe, it just is.

Therefore if you take humans out of the equation, the Universe just is. It has no awareness at all of itself?

So the physical laws and the mathematical constants and the precision of it all cease to exist along with it?

Taking that a step further, it could be argued that the Universe has intelligence.

Human beings derived from it,

we think.
Therefore we are.

We are part of the Universe therefore the Universe has intelligence.

Why does Science attempt to take us out of the equation...we are an intricate part of the Universe.

Knowledge does cease to exist if there is no mind to hold it. Knowledge is a model of aspects of the universe. Knowledge is not the universe itself. Physical laws are a kind of knowledge which models physical tendencies/patterns within the universe. The laws cannot exist without a mind to notice them, but the tendencies/patterns will remain. Mathematical constants are simply part of the models of the universe. They are, in fact, dependent on the models.

Science doesn't ignore humans... the fields of anthropology, psychology, archaeology, etc... are all studies of humans and aspects of humans. If you're talking about thinking of the universe as a system and including humans in that system, that's what living systems theory is a model of.

I can possibly understand the need to find meaning, and therefore to resort to god. What I don't understand is why that means the Christian story of god is the correct one.

That aside, however, I still don't see how a "meaning" even with god is any more meaningful than without god. We have one alternative, the atheist one if you will:

dust to dust

And we have the "godly" version, eternal life:

....???? eternal life? Maybe I misunderstand, but to me eternal life seems no better than eternal death. An eternity of what? Worshiping? Golf? Beer and Parties? My understanding of an eternity is no better than death.

In addition, a lack of an ability to "make sense of things" does not institute a valid reason to accept just one possible story and call it fact. I accept that the Christian view is possible, and to that degree I have hope, but I don't put all my eggs in one basket. If there is a god, I believe he gave us a rational, skeptical mind for a reason. That learning to think for yourself and understand the meaning behind books such as the bible is the purpose of life, not merely the faithful following of it just to make your life make sense.

My meaning comes from pondering the endless possibilities and figuring things out. I believe this is just as likely to be the purpose god gave us for life as unquestioning faith. In fact, if god is rational, I believe he appreciates rational inquiry and skepticism. But this is only because I’m agnostic, not atheist. I don’t know what the atheists might say is their purpose.

__________________
True knowledge exists in knowing what you don't know.

A Christian God best defines a set of guidelines in which to live one's life.

While a cadet in ROTC, I lived by 4 simple principles. An Honor code if you will.

I will not lie.
I will not cheat.
I will not steal
I will not tolerate those who do.

Correct, a person doesn't need a religion or God to establish guidelines.

I have never stated in any my postings that my beliefs should be imposed on anyone else.

I explored other religions, I choose to worship and share the faith of other Christians.

I've never stated in any of my postings that God created Jesus Christ as his Son as "fact"

As the title of the thread suggests...

It's about Faith.

This is the choice I've made, to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God.

Islam for example recognizes Jesus of Nazareth as a prophet but not the Son of God.

I really don't see understand what the problem is.

Regardless of how I arrived here, I've arrived.

Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.

I'm tolerant of other faiths and non-believers, it is the secular World that is increasingly intolerant of believers.

It is mocked and ridiculed as "fairy tale"

This is a war as far as I'm concerned. No one will deny those of faith from their chosen paths. Be it Islam/Judaism/Christianity.

No one.

Freedom of Religion is tantamount to a Free Nation.

This is a general note on the previous posts. At first you say that the universe in all its complexity is evidence of God's existence, but then I point out the logical flaw in that, and you say you are not seeking evidence. I conclude that you choose to believe in God, not because there is evidence, but for some other reason.

Before anyone approaches the world philosophically, there is a pondering of self. Once you are willing to accept as axiom the observation that a thought or perception has occurred, you can then choose how to react to such thoughts and perceptions.

Anyone who is a scientist/empiricist has made an explicit or implicit decision to treat observations made through their senses as the domain of interest. You cannot prove that the world one perceives is the only one that can effect you, but you can acknowledge that its effects are the only ones you notice.

I believe theists, on the other hand, live in an entirely different world. They have chosen not the perceived world as the domain of interest, but rather a world defined by their religion. A world in which God exists, in which the histories of their holy books are fact. This leads to a completely separate approach to determining what is factual and what is not.

It is a valid decision, but is it the best? The reason I believe an empiricist's source of facts is better is that it is the most fundamental and the most comprehensive. There are certain subjects that a religion can provide facts about which an empirical source of facts cannot even address, such as the existence of a God beyond our perception. This tends to lead those under such a worldview to believe theirs is superior. However, there are many things that empiricism can answer which most religions cannot, such as the precise path of a falling object, or the rate of radioactive decay of some chunk of plutonium.

A religious worldview is essentially empiricism with exceptions: Observations are fine for the mundane, but if the holy book says something to the contrary of empirical evidence, prefer the prior. Basically, there are contradictions, but they are settled by forcing the religious fact to override the empirical fact. I find this distasteful... empiricism is much more pure and consistent.

---

Further note: To an empiricist, the word "true" means that it is backed by "facts" (observations). To a religious person, it means it is backed by "facts" (claims of the church/holy book or messages "received from God"). To an empiricist, it is not true that God exists, by their metric, and to a theist it is true, by their own metric. I urge both religious and secular folks to keep this in mind when speaking to someone from the other camp. If someone says that God does or doesn't exist, don't interpret it by your own metric, but by theirs, if you wish to understand them.

If I mock and ridicule your beliefs, it's only because I'm used to people wanting to impose them on me. This naturally will put anyone on the defensive, as I'm sure you will understand.

That being said, again, my personal opinion is that Christianity is a possability to me, just as islam, buddism, and atheism is a possability to me. I personally enjoy looking into the foundations of christianity, buddism, islam, etc. because my study has shown me many similarities in their beliefe on our relationship with god and our purpose to life.

To sum it up, I beleive there is more than one way to climb to the top of a mountain, and I believe that if there is a god, he knows this and planned this.

__________________
True knowledge exists in knowing what you don't know.

Athiests are evangelist with a different messege-Believe in nothing or you are a foolish child talking to invisable friends. I cannot abide nilhist. Any faith or even believing in an intangible something is perfectly fine but believing in nothing disturbs me at my core.

I see it as the ultimate arrogance, followed by this IS what God is any anything else is WRONG.

God is infinate and therefore not a being that can be encapsulated by math or any particular book. Inherently, no single religion can encompass the whole truth but nothing is a lie.

There is plenty of proof the God exists. The fact that you can not discern that proof does not mean that proof is not there. Science is a tool not the end all be all of existence.

So believing that there is no god is the ultimate arrogance? Why is that? Is it because you are too scared to contemplate the possibility that your existance is indeed finite, and that random chance does rule the universe?


Let's not get into this, until you answer the next point which is:

Proof you say? Please enlighten us. There are many here who have been waiting and asking for such proof.

__________________
Catz: "And, the ever-sage Volvo Driver:"