I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

So rather than saying our soul. What you mean is your soul. As you can't possibly comment on the state of anyone else's soul.

We believe everyone's soul is in a miserable state after the fall, and in need of restitution. So you don't need to comment on that. You only need to focus on your spiritual growth and restitution, and ultimately salvation.

What you cannot comment on is who is going to be damned.

---

I'm just going to lay it out. Despite what you say an all. There is no reason for me to believe in a creator. My life runs well without that belief.

Whether your life runs well with or without it makes no difference to it's truth. There are also ignorant American evangelicals who will say the same about the theory of evolution. Their life runs well without it. But by using that as an excuse for ignorance, they are not getting closer to the truth about how biological life diversified.

My questions on how and why I'm here has already been answered by science. I see no reason to have any beliefs in a god.

Science does not answer the most basic existential questions, if that's what you mean.

Modern science does not answer if there is a God; it a priori excludes that, as outside the scope of it's investigation, which is the natural world.

Modern science does not answer if reality even exists; you will find physicists subscribing to the prevailing Bohrist Copenhagenist interpretation of quantum mechanics who categorically deny the existence of reality, who say to the contrary that "only observation and observers exist", or "only information and information gatherers exist".

Modern science does not answer why there is anything rather than nothing; you will find people with the interpretation of physics that, "it is highly improbable that there should be anything rather than nothing", which is of course a nonsense application of the notion of probability, which relates to the epistemic realm, not the ontologic.

The problem is simply that the scientific method was never meant to answer any of these existential questions. Answering them "scientifically" would be a violation of it's principles, specifically the principle that it's only scope of investigation is the natural and observable world.

God remains on the same level as other thought up characters.

He certainly does not. The God I have demonstrated is a rationally coherent and demonstrable hypothesis, within the realm of rational and empirical demonstration, and I have shown that to be the case. You have no reason to deny that to me, until you refute my arguments.