Why Humans Reject God

You give a reason people reject God, such as philosophical an intellectual searching, but you do not say why their conclusion is wrong. It seems that the only reason you think such a conclusion is wrong is that is is different from your conclusion. Have you undertaken such a rigorous analysis? You also site pride, and sure, some accomplished intellectuals are prideful, but how does this negate their argument even if they are prideful? If a person does such research, examines the evidence and concludes there is no God, where in such a person's argument against belief in God is pride a necesary component for the argument to be valid, that if they somehow removed pride, the argument would fall apart?

Arguments against the existence of God are much more complex than simply believing one doesn't need God, since that in and of itself is not convincing. I don't believe I need a ten bedroom house, but that certainly doesn't mean they don't exist. On the flipside, feeling a need for something does not mean that that the something exists. So if a person experiences a tragedy and feels they need God, or Gods, or some higher being, this does not at all mean it exists. If you want to know why some people do not believe in God, explore the arguments against the existence of God and see if you can find a mistake in their reasoning.

Why Humans Deny Themselves

Religion. Welcome to the core fundamental, founding purpose, principle, catalyst, and intiator as to why humans deny themselves. This constant is thoroughly seen in so many humans now withinin our society, and it is ever more seen within humans of lower wages and higher labor expenditure. Why do humans deny themselves? The answer is simple, they believe they cannot face the danger of a rebellious life, they fully believe they are sub-sovereign, and that they "just can't make it on their own". Of course many will respond to this claim with the response that humans deny themselves due to the search for something greater than themselves and the intervention of a supreme being, and that after much inner searching and scriptural readings they have found that a God exists. You have to understand, whenever a human is subjected to vast amounts of religious dogma and indoctrination that they begin to feel a sense of worthlessness, overt piety, and a general disdain for those who do face the danger of the independent life. It is a cruel irony, whenever one searches for spiritual enlightenment, they so commonly deny the sole existence they could ever possibly experience.

It is a somber reflection to think that the most simple of troubles and lightest of paths will cause a man to reject the true glory that can be found in himself. A large majority of the time, any minor inconvenience can send a man to his knees, bowed before an entity they could not possibly understand. Man created his own end, his religion will destroy him if he allows it to. Why are we so religious? Why do we think we are not worthy? Why can't we seem to live our own life? This universe is so vast and large, and with the very little knowledge we have about its design, we still have so much to learn. However, many will argue that we have uncovered so much in this cosmic scheme known as "life", and we have. Yet, we are so ignorrant as to what the true reality of life is.......and what the essence of it all is. Even though this much is left to be learned, explored, and overcame we turn our backs on discovery and cower in dark corners of our religions.

Religion is a virus that must be overcame, and if it is left unchecked, it will destroy us.

Funny, funny, funny......really funny. It seems that you have developed quite the potential to become a comedian one day.....maybe you should consider that? I know your type, Mr. Fight the Power and Dexter78, or maybe it's 87....I don't know, whatever. Regardless, you both are so predictable and so easily perceived to have responded with the response which you thus did. Mr. Fight the Power, you fear conformity don't you? You go to bed every night fearing that you won't stand out of the crowd. You fear this because of your inferiority complex that if no one notices you when you go about your daily routine, you will be simply forgotten when the world comes to its impending end. You are scared to death that no one will remember you......so you seek out fame by distorting the principles of "power" and your own existence becomes fully defined in rejecting everything to give you a sense of purpose. You hope people will notice if you "fight the power" of everything, including religion. Why do you do this? You are a slave to your own pride. Your pride will destroy you if you let it. Go ahead....respond to this post by simply repeating everything I say only contorting the words to the way you see them....prove me right.

You rely on "froofy" words and fancy terminology to ensure people are impressed by your demeanor and appearance. You both hide behind philosphy and your intellectual beliefs so that other people will hold the perception that you have it all figured out. But the truth is, you are utterly hopeless. You may not acknowledge to your own self. But you are. You feel your utter lonliness when you close your eyes at night, you feel your lack of purpose when you go out your door in the morning. You will irrevocably respond to this post with yet another endless contraption of "froofy" words that claim you don't need religion, nor do you need God. Why are you afraid of God? Your pride is killing your soul.

The ironic thing is the fact that I am merely a teenage punk kid who is debating you on the fact that God exists. You may be a college professor of philosphy, maybe you're a simple man who has wandered his entire life still yet to understand the meaning of it all, or maybe you live in your parent's basement. Whoever you are, it is ironic that I have already had the privledge of having the "truth" of life revealed to me.....and you will ultimately spend your entire life searching for the reason of our existence, unless the answer should be revealed to you. You fear death, don't you? The difference between us friend, is that when I face death one day, I will be smiling..........and you will be second-guessing every decision you ever made....hoping that you are right, and that there is no God. Because if there is a God............you won't be able to hide behind your philosophy anymore.

Go ahead, respond to this by repeating exactly what I say, or respond with your fancy words, or do the opposite.....since you are supposedly "Mr. Fight the Power", you probably won't respond at all just to prove me wrong. Either way, your pride will kill you and nail your courage to the sticking post.

-It's easy for you to preach atheism when you are hiding behind your computer screen.......try doing it when your looking down a gun barrel.

So you take issue with my responding with philosophy and "fancy words" in a PHILOSOPHY forum. How would you prefer I respond, with shadow
puppets? Your response is nothing more than a temper tantrum. And I hate to disappoint you, but I'm just a guy in my 20's, not much older than you, and I'm a scientist, not a professor of philosophy, though I'll take it as a compliment that you thought I was. When I was 18, I at least knew how to think. You don't, you're intolerant to any opposing view. You don't present an argument, you just shriek, "I'm right and you're wrong!" If a person has an intelligent argument about anything from religion to ethics to the Chinese stock market, I'll listen, and if I'm proven wrong about something, so be it. I'm not afraid of challenging my beliefs. Instead, you huff and puff and rant like a cheerleader who just had her outfit criticized, and your argument is just as substantial. You're an embarassment to the concept of being non-judgemental, a virtue your religion claims to extol.

Extol (transitive verb): To value highly, glorify.

If you need to believe that myself or Mr. Fight the Power or anyone else who disagrees with you wanders through life in misery, sadness, or loneliness etc. in order to validate your beliefs, then fine, go ahead. Speaking only for myself, I can say you're wrong, plain and simple, no froofy words, so you won't have to keep running to get the dictionary off your seat at the kitchen table. And no matter how many times you cram the statement into your posts, my supposed pride is not killing me. However, your ignorance is giving me a headache.

Simple words.......from a simple mind.

What is quite comical about this situation is that this is a PHILOSOPHY forum, and therefore, due to the constructed design for what a PHILOSOPHY has undeniably been created for, you enter into this forum to philosophy about the basic principles of the universe. However you gentlemen, or women if you may be, use this forum to enforce your own agenda and contort other's belief to your own. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is also the RELIGION FORUM, meaning: We talk about RELIGION here.....so if you're an atheist what are you doing here?

All I did was post why I believe people reject God, now my belief is my own belief, however ultimately I triggered a chain reaction which left you now frusturated that someone's view differed from your own. When I posted my statement, I ultimately intiated the chemical precursors within your brain to stimulate an emotion of malcontent against.....me and my beliefs, (once again this stems from your pride).

You will once again argue that I am the narrow minded one, however it was you first triggered the "childlike" response to my beliefs, so in the proper light you are actually the instigators of the very view you are trying to say I am holding the embodiment of.

Oh and by the way, Instigator: (noun, adjective): One who intiates a common cause, or purpose. The catalyst of a situation.

Once again I can predict what is irrevocably occuring within your mind. Your anger and pride is flooding your logic and reason, you are being overwhelmed with disgust against me. But of course, I am but a teenager who "intiated" an idea, and you are the so-called philosophers who can't receive what they dish out.

"You can preach atheism when you hide behind your computer screen, but let's see you do it when you have a gun barrel in your face."

I'll try to address this point by point. This is a philosophy forum, and as such is a place for the exchange of ideas, for people to present an argument for a position or idea, someone responds, etc. For example, you claimed that pride is why people reject God. In my first reply I state that it is the convincing nature of the arguments against God that explains why some people do not believe in God, and ask if you can find a flaw in such arguments, to point it out. At no time did you ever say anything such as "The scientific arguments against the existence of God are mistaken because..." or "The philosophical arguments against the existence of God are mistaken because..." Instead, you reply with statements like:



and:



These are statements, not arguments. And I'm the one pushing an agenda? Even your signature is "Truth cannot be found in things of this world, But in the God who created them." You don't know me at all, yet claim I'm utterly hopeless, utterly lonely, I feel a lack of purpose etc. None of this applies to me. Can you present an argument as to why what you said is true? You haven't as of yet, you just say it and leave it at that. You claim I am filed with disgust against you because your point of view is different, yet your above comments indicate it is you who are disgusted with me because of my views. Also, it is no more a requirement to be religious in order to talk about religion than it is for you to be an atheist in order to postulate about why people are atheists. For the record, I was once religious myself.

As I said, I am here to exchange ideas, different from mine or otherwise, and hear how people defend various positions. If a person presents very convincing arguments against one of my positions or in defense of their own, I will modify my position, I am not so prideful, as you frequently state, as to think that all my positions are 100% correct. However, you say:




You do not even hint at the possibility that you are wrong, you leave no room for discussion or debate, other than within your own framework, so why are you here? Why post in a philosophy forum, knowing there are those like myself and others here who have differing points of view and will respond to you, if you have no intention of considering views that are different from your own, or at the very least, present arguments against these opposing views.

TMeeker

You apparently have all the characteristics you have attributed to others here,in psychological terms it is called projection.What you do not lack is passion for your topic.You are new here and have NOT gotten off on the right foot------I know the experience.Make an argument and back it up, making proclamations is of a different nature than philosophy,otherwise find a biblical site that you will find more to your liking.PS:Whatever your argument,always allow for the negative response------that's what makes it interesting! Welcome to the site! Oh yes,the topic,"God is dead have you not heard?"

"You can preach atheism when you hide behind your computer screen, but let's see you do it when you have a gun barrel in your face."

TMeeker,statements like this are not a good idea,here or elsewhere I would imagine. May Zeus forgive you!

To begin with, the quote, "You can preach atheism when you're hiding behind you computer screen.........", is a hypothetical quote, and is simply stating that it is simple for one to instill their beliefs on others when they have the comfort and security of knowing they do not actually have to stand behind their views when reality comes knocking at their door.

In regards to Dexter78, you're right......I didn't present a valid arguement for you or the other members of the audience....and therefore my apologies. To give you some insight, I was once a member of another philosophy forum.....and I was ultimately banned for my beliefs so forgive me if I became aggressive when a group of people once again challenged me upon my views. There are very few Christians upon philosophy forums, so I hold a extremely straight-fowards stance when on this subject, and I am very hard-headed and very narrow minded upon my beliefs.

Secondly and emphatically, and what really matters most, my arguement for the existence of God.......let the fireworks begin. I want to start of by providing the readers of this with a variety of websites to explore to present my case, you may or may not visit these, but remember if you don't........don't waste time arguing with me if you haven't seen the facts.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html

My arguement is simple, God is the ultimate architect and designer of this cosmic universe. You ask the question: How do you know God exists? Simple, as you read these words right now, you're brain is rapidly relaying nerve impulses by the use of motor neurons, neurotransmitters, and nerve fibers at a speed which is uncomprehensible. You read these letters, these words.....your brain is formulating an idea for what these words mean, and what the idea behind them is stimulating you to believe. Your brain is right now, rapidly processing thoughts and conscious ideas, which thus, leave you with an understanding with what I am typing. But as I am typing these words, your intellectual subconscious arguement is that in the back of your mind.....you are argueing with yourself that God cannot exist. Why? Denial.....denial is the most predictable of all human emotions, and with it, humans reject the things and images they cannot see.

You don't believe in God, because you cannot see Him. You require visible proof from God to earn your belief in Him. But let me ask you this....you cannot see air......but you know it is there. You have to believe air exists because that is the only logical explanation for how you are breathing right now as you read these words. But who do you think is allowing your respiratory system right now to process the air your lungs are cycling through your body.....right now as you read these words? Do you think this process just happens by chance? Do you think your brain which is processing the thoughts right now of your rejection of God, is actually constructing these conscious thoughts by some mere sporadic chance? It is ironic for one to think, that creator you are ultimately rejecting, is the very one who is keeping you alive right now.

In terms of logically proving God's existence.....my gosh, how much logic do you need? Look at a car, no one looks at a car passing by, and exclaims: "Whoah! I guess that vehicle just randomly appeared from nothing! It's a miracle!" It's the same thing with us as human beings, we LOGICALLY have to have been constructed from a creator. We know that from LOGIC, since we as humans exist, God must exist, due to the fact that we cannot LOGICALLY be here without the existence of an architect.

When it really comes down to it, we're all going to die. This simple seventy years we spend within this life, is but a mere whisper in comparison to eternity......so why are you willing to take the chance that there isn't a God, and jeopardize your eternal future? That's a really big gamble to take. I mean when you die.....there's no changing your mind.

Just to let you know.....that since you began reading my reply.......you've lost another five minutes off your life.

This is more like it. I have read your arguments and perused the sites you've provided. To start with, you give the argument that humans reject things they can not see. This isn't true, since most humans believe in things they can't see, such a spirits and God. Also, if I hear my friend talking to me from another room, I can't see him, but I know he's there. What humans reject is that something happens without a causal agent, and there's an interesting article about this, and other behavioral traits, here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?em&ex=1173330000&en=72737f259e2a2da7&ei=5087%0A

I can give you the condensed version, which basically states that there are evolutionary reasons why we think how we think, including why so many feel the need to believe in a God.

As for air, I actually can see the molecules with the right equipment. But more than that, I can feel it when the wind blows, I can see the result of air molecules scattering certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, and if I cool it to a low enough temperature, I can see the nitrogen, oxygen, etc. in liquid form. I can blow bubbles in water, etc. etc. There is no similar sensory corollary that can be applied directly to God. Air is a substance with properties that can be measured while God is provided as the explanation for why there is air, why I breathe, what caused me, my parents and so on. What this boils down to, and one of the arguments listed on your sites, is the first cause argument. However, this argument is self defeating, since by it's own logic God must have a cause, which must have a cause, etc. By providing a being that needs no cause, it violates its own central axiom. Physics does not always behave as neatly as you might think. In other words, the laws of physics can be very counter-intuitive, and the application of such linear causal-based thinking is not always the correct approach. Some explanations without the mathematical rigor are provided in books like "The Elegant Universe" and "Hyperspace." If eventually you want to convince yourself mathematically, there are many good textbooks.

With the car, you give an example of the argument by design. Dpmartin has also used this one, and you can read my response here:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=300&page=2

One mistaken perception about evolution is that it is completely random, it is not. Evolution is one of the most successfully tested theories in all of science, explaining everything from cellular organisms to complex lifeform. The eye, the brain, lungs etc. did not just appear in their current complex form, it took hundreds of millions of years, with the success or failure of each tiny permutation determined by the environment the organism was living in, not by mere chance. Don't take my word for it, read about the theory yourself and see if you can find where it fails to explain life. Just as you state that one should be familiar with the arguments for God if they wish to debate it, you must familiarize yourself with the concepts of the opposing arguments.



This is essentially Pascal's Wager, and I reject it that same way I would with other wagers. To me, the likelihood of a God and eternal life is so finite, so improbable that it is not worth it for me to worship something I do not believe exists and adopt the guidelines of religion, many of which I find impractical, inflexible, and intolerant, when I am quite happy to live my brief life for what it is, a brief life with plenty of good and bad experiences, meaningful because I interpret it as such. Is this meaning subjective? Entirely. And I like it that way. When you think about it, everything is.




This is not good for anyone, whether they are Christian, atheist, a Druid priest, whatever. It stiffles the learning process and prevents thourough analysis of both one's own beliefs and opposing views.

TMeeker,you are mistaken if you think that agnostics or atheists have not been tested by fire,gone through all of lifes trails and tribulations.You would do yourself a favour if you lightened up a bit.

"In regards to Dexter78, you're right......I didn't present a valid arguement for you or the other members of the audience....and therefore my apologies. To give you some insight, I was once a member of another philosophy forum.....and I was ultimately banned for my beliefs so forgive me if I became aggressive when a group of people once again challenged me upon my views. There are very few Christians upon philosophy forums, so I hold a extremely straight-fowards stance when on this subject, and I am very hard-headed and very narrow minded upon my beliefs."

You claim here to be extremely straight forward,hardhead and narrow minded,how indeed did you expect to be treated?To most peoples evaluations these are not positive qualities.One would have to be a fool to attempt a give and take dialogue.Although I do not share your faith,I do have a degree of admiration for the passion you display----a lot of honest energy there.

"Secondly and emphatically, and what really matters most, my arguement for the existence of God.......let the fireworks begin. I want to start of by providing the readers of this with a variety of websites to explore to present my case, you may or may not visit these, but remember if you don't........don't waste time arguing with me if you haven't seen the facts.

Proof That God Exists
A Practical Man's Proof of God - Does God Exist?"

Now you wish to give you peers homework to do.This debate has been going on for thousands of years TMeeker.Even the most enlightened spiritual leaders know God's existence is not proveable or disproveable.Indeed if God were proveable, if there was such knowledge you would have no need of faith.If you are here as a fisher of men good luck to you but get it in perspective.I can only assume you are here as a fisher of men otherwise you would be where the reception is warmer-----but then you would not stand out.

All of your arguments here about why there is a God are thousands of years old and have not convinced,well perhaps convinced some, but were not overtime proven logical,the divine watchmaker ect..,Even as you speak of God,you are probably thinking of a most particular God -----no? If there be a God,he/it/her is beyond all thought.

"The Truth Is One,The Sages Speak Of It By Many Names". Upanishads

Such honest passion though is admireable,I hope you can use it so that it does not create acid for yourself and others.Your approach reminds me of the guy who puts a chip on his shoulder and dares someone to knock it off,not a good setting for either party.I have asked this question before of believers,assumeing they were not fisherman,if it is not debateable why bring it here?

Dexter78,you just slipped in in front of me,great post!

tMeeker,

I edit your post to fit my nihilistic views and it entitles you to say all of this?

First I will address your estimation of me.

Conformity, like all arbitrary things, is not something of value, not something to be strived for or fought against. If you become familiar with internet forums of this nature, you will notice that atheism is not a rarity, and atheists do not stand out. In real life, I actually shy away from sharing my religious views (I am strong agnostic, to be specific) outside of close friends for fear of discrimination. So, in the end, I prefer conformity when it suits my purposes, dislike it when it does not.

As for my fear of death, I would not particularly call it a fear, as it is unreasonable to fear nothing. I do not wish for death, however, as it would be a sad thing indeed to miss those experiences that life brings. I am also not all that keen on being remembered, as it is far more important to be right than to be remembered for being right (or wrong for that matter). I go to bed at night not fearing anonymity or death, but trying to forget the worries of today and concentrating on the hopes for tomorrow.

As for my name, it is far a from a declaration of my actions and opinions. I had made a joke about my admiration for Huey P. Newton at work, and a guy I worked with started calling me "Mr. Fight the Power". I took a liking to it being the unassuming white male that I am.


Now to your "arguments".

I am not sure what "froofy" words I used, but it is not an attempt to make others think that I have everything figured out, as I would never profess to that (that would take a prideful individual indeed). It is quite the contrary, actually, as it is the quest for knowledge, the challenge of learning that I enjoy in life. If I were to know everything, or feel that I knew everything, it would certainly open a void that I would not be able to fill.

You accuse me of being afraid of my loneliness, but the accusation shows more of you than it does me: I relish the loneliness, I love the challenge, I live to be myself!

That you look upon life without a belief in God as a life of fear and longing speaks to the fear that you yourself are cowering from in the placebic shield of God. You truly fulfill my Neitzchean adjustment of your own words:



It is unfortunate that you bear a strong probability of fulfilling the next sentence, as well. You live through your undying and untested faith that you are correct in your beliefs (that takes a very prideful individual indeed!), but you also deny your own life as well. If you continue to live your life blindly by the dogma of religion, you will likely find yourself to have existed without ever living.

Now I did not argue for atheism, as you seem to think, rather I made an existential statement with no mention of the validity of religion or God, but apparently terrified you, nevertheless. Like I said, I am an agnostic, and feel that it is impossible to observe evidence of "God" and meaningless to make arguments for "God". I cannot resist, however, to dispell these asinine "proofs" for God's existence.

For yours, there is hardly reason to counter it, as you fail to prove that form requires a conscience to create it.

As for the step by step "Proof that God Exists":

- the denial of absolute truth does not have to be either an absolute truth or a falsehood, this is what is called a false dichotomy
- logic and math describe mental concepts, not entities, therefore they do not describe reality, but describe our interpretation of reality; it is impossible for logical and mathematical concepts to not be true, is their very definition is how concepts relate, for example 2 + 2 must be 4 because it is the definition of 4
-the laws of science are not laws, but theories, they are never accepted as absolute truth and it is acknowledged that if it was impossible for them to be proven wrong, they fail to be scientific
- morals are dependent upon the subjective individual perception of an action, it is not determined by society; it is a matter of personal preference that one says an action is wrong
- it inserts this completely superfluous "truth" (without establishing any sort of acceptance from the reader) that "Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature."
- even if it were a valid proof of the necessity governing force to be rational, it hardly provides any evidence as to what that force is

I don't want to waste more time on the other one.

You and I apparently disagree on what is "honest passion". If he is passionate then he is certainly not honest, if he is honest, then he is certainly not passionate.

Mr Fight The Power,

I am thinking of someone who has taken that leap of faith,now that is in itself dishonesty but the passion comes after that fact and I believe it to be honest.I have a longtime close friend who is a born again Christian.I do not believe he had any intellectual integrity whatsoever when he took that leap of faith but I know the man,I do not doubt the sincerity of his will to believe.Perhaps you have a different slant on it,I would be most interested in hear it.

As a nihilist you can see that what they are trying to do is create meaning, religious people that I know have never approached the topic of nihilism.For these people there must be passion and community to maintain the illusion of this meaning,they are after all going for the big one,ultimate reality,creating reality with a fiction.As I type this out I see I am painting myself into a corner,yes if it was honest, would it take such great effort.So then,are all believers dishonest?

I consider all of the residual faith after the original leap to be analogous to all of the lies one must tell to continue an initial deception, you know, as one little white lie can result in one big lie. I read an article in Discover magazine where an atheist made a trip to the big Creationist museum in Kentucky that is kind of appropriate. In the article the writer expresses how impressed he was at the thought and work that went into the museum, but in the end he states that he has even less patience with Creationists. Why? To him it seems that Creationists are not so much showing creationism to be more true, but showing it to be less implausible. He thinks that they don't actually believe what they are preaching. Like me, he thinks it is more an attempt at strengthening the deception than reformulating the truth.

As a nihilist, I can find nothing more dishonest than the constant creation of meaning simply because one cannot accept that none exists.

(I tend to wonder if life is possible without the deception, however.)

Mr Fight The Power,

Excellent,I do not disagree.

"I tend to wonder if life is possible without the deception however."

You are in good company then,the same problem trouble Nietzsche.

Still,with nihilism does it not point to a greater wonder,that all apparent reality is relational or as Schopenhaur said subject and object stand or fall together? The nature of both true and false relational as well,beauty uglyness and the sense of the sublime relational.I have been following your posts Mr Fight The Power,an enriching addition to these forums you are.

"Myth it can be said is the other man's religion,religion it can be said is the misinterpretation of myth." The late Joseph Campbell

You gentlemen may not think this, but I actually hold a degree of appreciation for you. You all are very well informed, and you obviously have either pursued a great deal of education or you have simply labored many hours upon philosophical and intellectual manuscripts to better influence yourself about the many beliefs out there. I understand where you three are each coming from....I understand that vast amounts of information which you believe to disprove the existence of God, have created a sphereical system of disbelief around the context of your life. Although we may irrevocably disagree from huge opposite ends of the spectrum upon this issue of God, I still admit that you are all very intelligent and well-informed men.

When I claim that I am narrow-minded, I say this within my beliefs of the existence of God. Just because I am narrow-minded that on one issue doesn't necessarily mean that I have no room for imagination or dreaming on other concepts. I have to be narrow-minded upon my belief of the existence of God, if I wasn't narrow-minded, I could find myself buying into the "intellectual dogma" which many atheists and agnostics project. But don't be too quick to judge someone just because they are narrow-minded on one issue, that is not your place.

Dexter78, I think I've actually seen a documentary on NOVA about "The Elegant Universe", and yeah I agree. It's a really interesting and amazing subject that really delves into the deepest and most complex matters of the cosmos. But doesn't the amazing complexity of this universe, the warped spacetime, the 11-Dimensional membranes, the atoms, protons, electrons, the curvature of time, the gravity of the earth's design, the functions of the human organ systems, the position of our solar system, quantum physics, governing dynamics, this giant cosmic scheme defined as life.......doesn't all this give significant evidence to the proof an ultimate architect? I mean how could this ACTUALLY happen by mere chance? Consider the gravity of what you are talking about here, the fact that everything needed for the survival and the advancement of mankind just happens to all come together?

I would really really recommend that you all take a look at the documentary or book titled "The Priveleged Planet", which is simply an in-depth informative overview of proof that God exists. Although you of course do not believe in God's existence, I think since you all are very interested in mathematics and science, you would all very much
appreciate and enjoy this documentary. If it makes you any more interested, I don't even think the writers of the film made it from a Christian perspective......it's just after all the information they provide........let's just say they make a pretty strong case for the existence of God. It's a very interesting study into how "priveleged" our planet actually is, how vital our placement within our solar system is, and how fortunate we are with the provided care we have been given. You can check out some information on this at:

http://www.privilegedplanet.com/

Mr. Fight the Power, you state: "If you continue to live your life blindly by the dogma of religion, you will likely find yourself to have existed without ever living." Existence is supremely defined by the construct which one defines for himself. Reality is ultimately and undeniably the reflection which one creates for his own well being. Therefore, if I see this life through the "dogma of religion", who are you to tell me I haven't lived? Christ said,"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full". The difference is the fact that your definition of "living" is the negative of my own. In my faith, one must crucify or deny themself in order to have life, and by doing this, we gain the most purest and undefiled life one could ever have. But as Shakespeare eloquently put it, "I dare do all that may become a man, who dares do more is none", Macbeth. In my definition of life, I have already died....and therefore, I have now lived.

Boagie, thank your for your admiration for my passion, because yes I am fueled by my faith. You are very professional and informed within your posts, I admire you for that. However you state: "I have asked this question before of believers,assumeing they were not fisherman,if it is not debateable why bring it here?" Why do I venture into philosophy forums to simply argue with those whose beliefs radically differ from mine? Because yes I do consider myself to be a fisher of men, and I wouldn't be here if I didn't care about what will happen to you when you die. Contrary to what you may think, Christians don't challenge atheists or agnostics purely to spure a controversial arguement.....they challenge them for the simple reason of preventing them from going down a wide road where the grass on the other side is not very green. It's more of a mocha brown.

TMeeker,

"When I claim that I am narrow-minded, I say this within my beliefs of the existence of God. Just because I am narrow-minded that on one issue doesn't necessarily mean that I have no room for imagination or dreaming on other concepts. I have to be narrow-minded upon my belief of the existence of God, if I wasn't narrow-minded, I could find myself buying into the "intellectual dogma" which many atheists and agnostics project. But don't be too quick to judge someone just because they are narrow-minded on one issue, that is not your place."

The nature of philosophy is dabate,by your own admission you have no imagination for conflicting concepts,no toleration around this topic and yet it is this particular issue you wish to force feed------NOT our place,your bloody right its our place.My experience with believers is this,if you are kind and tolerant to them they just get more arrogant.I get the point,you want to save the world,but much of the world does not want to be saved.Your attempt at indoctrination makes me weary,it is intellectually wanting.

I suggest you move on from this,try some other topics on the board that you are allowed to think about.




It is a dreamy moveing not quite thing,only the illusion is the grasp of the ring.

Thank you for your debate. I'm sorry you see Christians in the manner which you thus do.