Christ's birthday

[rjh4 is back]

All of this is based on faith a faulty way of determining anything that one cannot comprehend.

And how do you know it is faulty in this case? Is faith always faulty?

In any event, it seems you did not get my point. It was pointed out to me by EvF that postulating God does not help as it just required something else, God, to be explained. My point was that even with a naturalistic version of how things came to be, one continues to require postulating something that also needs to be explained. So I guess I just don't see how a naturalistic explanation like I've heard so far gets anyone to a better point (except, however, if you do not want to acknowledge God...I admit that it does achieve that point for the time being). Why is a naturalistic explanation always better? I do not think even all scientists think a naturalistic explanation of something is always better, otherwise those scientists who are looking for alien signals would not be doing so. If it is not always better, why is it so necessary for the explanation of our existence (unless you already have a presupposition against God)?

---

I am open to believe but havn't had any plausible evidence to support a believe in the Christian God as the creator.

Maybe it would help me if you could explain what evidence you would accept to believe in the Christian God as creator, if you can think of something that you would accept. I would also still like to know how, from your point of view, energy and matter come together to produce logic, which is not matter or energy. Is logic merely manmade also?