Reasons

[fr0d0]

So I understand where you're coming from Frodo; I think there are some reasonable arguments for the existence of god. I just think there are more for God's non-existence.

Well none of those arguments sound reasonable to me, but of course if you thought like me your position would be different. :p

I am saying I do not believe in the existence of things without evidence.

I'm saying that too. I'm also saying that God as a thing never presents the opportunity to prove him/ her. Our only option is to consider God's existence philosophically. If you insist on using provable evidence you have an easy job.. no thinking to do. If you use philosophy, there's lots of thinking to do.

See now we're getting into semantics. To me provable evidence is empirical, but what it seems you mean by provable is that essentially you can argue god into existence and to me that's fallacious.

No, I agree more with you. I can never argue God into existence - he/ she must remain unprovable to be God.

Besides, most philisophical arguments I have seen for god, if they can prove true which I don't think is the case, seem to argue for a deistic god, and I think if such a god exists, (Which, to be clear I'm agnostic about the deistic god) he's not really worth worshipping or believing in. You can't make the jump from saying something like god is love to then putting attributes on him like answering prayers and caring about your sex life.

I do. But obviously we see things differently.

Yes I've heard other cults say that ... I would like to hear some kind of reasoned justification outside of some kind of innate prejudice.

These things aren't biblical and aren't accepted by the wider church:

• Interercession of saints
  
• Mary as God/ Praying to Mary
  
• Worship of Idols & Idols in Church
  
• Priests as intermediaries for God
  
• The pope is a descendant of Peter
  
• That Peter was ever meant to lead the church
  
• That the Pope is the head of the church
  

Just a few things off the top of my head.

None of which denies them the label of Christianity.

True. Catholicism is accepted by the wider Christian church as Christian. And me (I'm sure they'd be thrilled (joke)). But all these things I listed are anti Christ's teachings. Some Catholics are Christians, but a lot aren't.

Who exactly has agreed with you then?

Demonaura, Adrian and thoughtful I think.

Where would that be then?

Demonaura, Adrian and thoughtful