calgon wrote:you just know God and Death exist. You just know.
No, it is
KNOWN that Death exists; it is universally observed, it is reproducible, and it is verifiable. It
IS NOT KNOWN whether there is a diety or not. It is believed by many that there is, but, by definition, a deity would be a transcendent, paranormal entity, and therefore outside our sphere of reference and hence unknowable ... submitting neither to proof nor disproof, unobservable, not reproducible, not verifiable. Belief is one thing. Information derived through the rational and critical assembly and consideration of independently reproducible observations of phenomena which leads to consistent accurate explanation of past observations and applications and accurate prediction of related new observations and applications is entirely another thing; it is fact as near as can be determined given the available data. Note the "as near as can be determined given the available information" caveat there ... that is what science, logic, and reason are all about. Something new may come along either through directed research or by serendipity, calling for a reappraisal of previous theory, and ther process goes on. It is how knowledge is gained. It is dynamic, it is not a closed loop.
Religion, on the other hand, is a closed loop; iits sole claim to legitimacy is in and of itself;
there is no external proof or reference. "Of course there is a god, because I, and all those I hold in respect, believe there is a god ... and you are a lesser being if you refuse to accept that". That's a pretty lame, exclusionary, self-limiting, intolerant, perfectly circular argument. It simply does not stand to logic or reason, and therefore perforce is illogical and unreasonable.
One can no more provide a forensically valid argument for the existence of a god than one can provide such an argument against the existence of a god. The only objective, rational conclusion that can be reached is "Insufficient data". Some are convinced beyond doubt one way, some another, and some are capable of living with being unconvinced, but willing to consider the matter one way or the other, and some of them put effort into actively exploring the issue. I don't know you at all. calgon, nor do you know me. I assure you, however, that while I may not share your belief set, I do not disparage you for it. It would be only just and right for you to extend me the same consideration. In fact, if you are truly Christian, you have to.
I have some knowledge and experience, both practical and academic, of religion in its many manifestations. I'll happily discuss, critique, compare, and contrast any of several versions of The Bible with you, or The Koran, or The Bhagavad Vita, or The Talmud, The Tibetan Book of The Dead, the Graeco-Roman Pantheon, the Nordic Myths, or Zoroaster, Gilgamesh, Martin Luther, Gregory I, Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Budha, Confucius, Teilard de Chardin, Mary Baker Eddy, Bishop Usher, Voodoo, Polynesian cults, Native American shamans, and lots, lots, lots more (including Thomas Moore) ... been there, done that, found it less than satisfying. I most certainly do not approach the subject from total ignorance npr with a closed mind. I'm curious as hell. I just haven't found the answer yet, and while I don't know whether there is or is not an answer available to me, I intend to continue to look for one. To do otherwise would be intellectually disonest, and bankrupt both morally and ethically. Its wonderful you find your own particular belief set fully satisfying. It works for you, and thats fine. Your belief set doesn't work for me, and that's fine too, believe it or not.
You wrote:and by the way......have you asked God why you are feeling this way?
and how do you expect God to consider answering when you don't give him any consideration from your end? It's a two way street.
Thats just silly ... you're saying that in order to believe in god you have to believe in god. I suggest you look into
Circular Logic. Have fun.
For more fun, try to grasp this:
A positive, integral function f(n) has an unlimited set of instances, so
that
Setf(n) = {f(1), f(2), f(3),...}
This set contains an unlimited number of finite subsets
Setf(k) = {f(1), f(2), f(3), ...f(k)} k<=n,
the cardinal of the sets being k.
These subsets possess an obvious property.
Given that f(n) < f(n+1) and k <= f(k),
every f(k)th subset of f(n) will include its own cardinal ("k").
Other subsets will contain a member r>k.
Therefore, every subset will contain a member m>=k.
Now, this property will be true of Setf(n) however great n may be.
If, in extremis, Setf(n) is regarded as infinite the following alternatives
exist:
(1) If all the members of Setf(n) are regarded as remaining finite, then the
cardinal of the set remains finite
(2) If the cardinal of Setf(n) is regarded as infinite, then the set must
contain infinite members greater than its cardinal.
Mathematically, as setf = N = { 1,2,3,...etc } has to be an infinite set containing nothing but finite numbers, a condition which cannot pertain, neither alternative can pertain, though logically, one or the other must. That's sort of like trying to prove there is or is not a god; either way, the process of establishing a given proof invalidates that proof. To do so would require there be simultaneously an infinite number of proofs that there is no infinity, and a finite number of proofs that there is.
