I get you, fr0d0. I know a lot of Christians (how could I not?) and used to be one myself (in childhood). I understand that you believe that god exists and that you feel justified in that belief. That's all fine and dandy. Evidence Vs. Faith (besides being a moderator of global proportions) is the core issue at the heart of almost all debates between atheists and theists. We all know this, right?
My original point was that belief in god is not possible unless one has faith that god exists. There is no reason to believe that does not require that belief to be true. I think we agree on that. I think I'm safe in saying that most of us atheist types (here comes a generalization) are incapable of religious faith and will not believe that god exists until we are given evidence to support the claim. "God just is" will not fly with us. We say, "show me." Of course, that can't be done.
It begins with questions. Who/what made us? Who/what made the universe? Etc.
Religion answers the question: God did.
Believers respond: Oh. Okay then. (and are satisfied)
Meanwhile, the rest (scientists, philosophers, archeologists, paleontologists, astronomists, etc.) begin looking for the answers to those questions. If they find that the answer is, indeed, god... then they will support the answer given by religion. But, so far, god has not proven to be the answer to those questions. Over thousands of years, they have searched and searched for the answers and have found a veritable mountain of evidence to suggest that the answers are wholly natural (not supernatural).
A mountain of evidence to support potential answers that would not require god to exist... Vs. ...Zero evidence to support the claim that he does.
There is only one logical conclusion. So, you may choose to believe that god exists, but that it an illogical thing to believe. You know that. That begs a further question. Why do you believe that, fr0d0?
My original point was that belief in god is not possible unless one has faith that god exists. There is no reason to believe that does not require that belief to be true. I think we agree on that. I think I'm safe in saying that most of us atheist types (here comes a generalization) are incapable of religious faith and will not believe that god exists until we are given evidence to support the claim. "God just is" will not fly with us. We say, "show me." Of course, that can't be done.
It begins with questions. Who/what made us? Who/what made the universe? Etc.
Religion answers the question: God did.
Believers respond: Oh. Okay then. (and are satisfied)
Meanwhile, the rest (scientists, philosophers, archeologists, paleontologists, astronomists, etc.) begin looking for the answers to those questions. If they find that the answer is, indeed, god... then they will support the answer given by religion. But, so far, god has not proven to be the answer to those questions. Over thousands of years, they have searched and searched for the answers and have found a veritable mountain of evidence to suggest that the answers are wholly natural (not supernatural).
A mountain of evidence to support potential answers that would not require god to exist... Vs. ...Zero evidence to support the claim that he does.
There is only one logical conclusion. So, you may choose to believe that god exists, but that it an illogical thing to believe. You know that. That begs a further question. Why do you believe that, fr0d0?
