One question for Christians

[Dionysius]

Skepticism is certainly warranted but out right denial would seem to be intellectually hasty.

As hasty as outright credence in the face of all the evidence ever presented? Not to mention that I'm not denying anything, for to do so would necessitate something to deny. I'm just sitting here looking at a naked Emperor and being told what a natty dresser he is.

A belief in God can be reduced to the question of whether discarnate consciousness is possible. For example a compelling argument can be developed if we view the ostensible perpetuity of the universe as a self-regulating intelligence where it wills a continual existential balance; a symmetry of elemental interactions necessary to sustain life. While no definitive agent known as nature can be isolated we know that such a corporation of influences do indeed exist which comprise nature.

That's all the metaphysical speculation I have for the moment.

Well, now you're using applied Dolphinetics and switching from the existence of "God" to the belief in it. Metaphysics, like all philosophy, only has as much power in that world that the believer needs at any one time. We can argue back and forth all day about whether Smurfs have blue blood or just blue skin; but unless we can acknowledge that there aren't actually any Smurfs, it's all a huge circlejerk without the fun of the climax.

I prefer to speculate on the phenomena of God from a more intellectually palatable - yet still religiously accurate- vantage. I'm ascertaining the plausibility of blue-blooded smurfs not on their actual existence which can't as yet be proven but on their rather undeniable footprint - something caused these poor sods to run 'round apeing religion all over the place.