Fear?

[Radiant1]

Of course, all theories that have not been proven via the scientific method of observation, test, measurement, and analysis would be 'suspect' as to their validity. Just remind yourself that a great number of theories in all areas of science, have been proven to be correct. And many eventually are discredited. This is natural as our knowledge advances.

Again, why do you reject God because God can't be proven scientifically, but yet accept theories (not FACTS mind you) that you admit are suspect because they can be disproven? This reeks of double standards.

I'll just remind you Rad1, that you also rely on "observations of men" to live your daily life. Otherwise, you can reject all advances mankind has made in physics, chemistry, medicine, technology, etc, and go live your life with some tribe in the amazon, and enjoy that! I suspect both of us could learn more about what man really understands about the universe at this point in time. Spectacular advancements in our knowledge have been made in the last 20 years. When we land an exploratory probe spacecraft on a comet hurtling through space, billions of miles away, humanity should celebrate this to the upmost. But it's a collective meh amongst the majority of humanity, as they are more interested in what Kim Kardashian is doing (Americans anyway) or devising new ways to kill each other in the name of their God.

1. No need to remind me, I never had a problem with relying on the observations of men. You, however, do, except where it comes to scientific theories of course, ones that you admit are suspect because you never know which ones will be discredited later. Again, this reeks of double standards on your part.

2. I hardly think you can speak for the collective. In addition, mankind was killing each other long before religion. That's a human trait period. And, science/technology goes a long way into finding new ways to kill people. Your double standards are still reeking.

You may. I'll put this on my list, which is growing quite long. Agree that the probability for organic life to evolve in any planetary (including moons) is low. However, we know the building blocks are strewn throughout the universe. Meteorites have been found to contain amino acids.

I won't hold my breath for you ever getting around to reading it. Why? I'm going to take an educated guess here and say because you're obviously indoctrinated to your atheistic point of view and have no real interest in doing so. So you agree that the probability of life as we know it is very low, but yet have a problem with the probability of the existence of a Higher Power we call God. There's those smelly double standards again.

Right, I do put more faith in astrophysics than I do in the soft sciences. Philosophy formed a basis or foundation for science. But there is good science to be found in some of the soft sciences, and some squishy stuff as well.

So you put faith in astrophysics (or cosmology if you will), which is a branch of metaphysics, but yet in a previous post held metaphysics to a different standard than the so-called hard-sciences (see post #63), interesting! In addition, you admit you have "faith" in something but yet disparage those who have "faith" in something else. We're now drowning in the funk of these double standards.

Indoctrination is far and away the primary way people of faith come to believe. What do you think the probability of your being a Christian would be if you were brought up in India with Hindu parents and over 1 Billion practicing Hindus? Religion is really more about geography and place of birth, than it is the permeation of some universal truth. And while scientists are susceptible, the number claiming faith in a personal god are far less than non-scientists.

No matter what one believes about God, the fact remains that people believe there is a God and that has nothing to do with geographic location. As for indoctrination, see above. As for the personal God bit, we were never talking about a personal God but rather faith in God or a Higher Power period. We weren't discussing what people believe about God but simply that they believe. (See next post for further extrapolation).

We're definitely on different wavelengths of thinking here, but then again, we both knew that and that's why were debating. For me, I've come to an epiphany lately. It's sometimes more fun to try and understand why you think the way you do, instead of attempting to prove that I'm right.

Of course we're on different wavelengths because you are not open minded enough to entertain the notion that there is no dichotomy between faith and science. That's probably because you've been indoctrinated, or you have something to fear by it. Btw, I wasn't debating, I was dialoguing. There's a difference.

 

[Radiant1]

If you're referring to "mental strength" of an Atheist, strength may not be the best word. I would only say that people of no belief in god, tend to look at the 'God Question' much more analytically than those who would believe.

Actually, you appeared to be referring to "mental strength", not me. Are you claiming that people of faith cannot be analytical, or that one has not used analysis to come to the conclusion that God exists?

93% of the members of the National Academy of Scientists self identify as either Atheist or Agnostic. For the others that manage a belief in a personal god, I suspect many variables play into this, such as indoctrination from a young age, personal life experience, a perceived revelation, etc. They know that science is about conforming one's beliefs to the evidence, and not making the evidence, no matter how weak, conform to one's beliefs. But this is exactly what they must do when it comes to belief in a personal God. Some may engage in apologetics, but I'd guess most don't bother, knowing it's a losing proposition in the harsh light of evidence and scientific method based thinking.

Quote your source i.e. 93% because I've read stats stating 41%, which leaves over half of scientists having faith in a Higher Power of some sort. I suppose we can argue over the Agnostics. Agnostics by definition do indeed believe there is a Higher Power, they just don't happen to believe that Higher Power is involved in human affairs. That's a far different definition from an Atheist who believes there is no Higher Power at all. To equate them both into your 93% is intellectual dishonesty. In addition, you only have SUSPICIONS about scientists with faith in God and why, you don't really know but yet have no problem coming to a conclusion about it, which is interesting. Regardless, you're dodging the question. I asked what you thought of the findings of those scientists who do have faith in God. If you think them deluded for believing, then that puts you in the position of accepting the scientific discoveries of a deluded person does it not? Still smelling those double standards...

Our evolutionary past may explain why our brains are susceptible to belief. It goes back 40 Million years ago, when the "attachment mechanism" took hold in mammals, facilitating the bonding of offspring to parents. Religion uses this human instinct via parental qualities attributed to God; i.e. the father-like figure of God, and the mother-like figure of Mary in the Catholic religion. People who feel the need to have something in 'control' of their lives, other than randomness and their own character, find it comforting to latch on to these perceptions of benevolent parental-like God(s). Additionally, I think you may agree, that the innate fear of death and the belief that a personal God can provide eternal life, is a primary motivator in multiple religions. It's impossible to tell just when this belief began, because it's not like the ancient hominids were writing down their thoughts as writing didn't exist.

It MAY or it MAY NOT. You really don't know, but never the less that doesn't explain why mankind decided to explain what it did not understand with a God and not some other explanation. The fact of the matter is that from the beginning of written history mankind has believe in God, and the majority of mankind still does regardless and in addition to recent scientific advances. You, Proxima, are in the minority. You, Proxima, may just be the one deluding yourself. MAYBE it's because you're upset that the world seems to be such a horrible place with wars, famine, etc and since you anthropomorphize God you think there must not be a God since these things happen. But, that's a MAYBE, I don't really know.

Btw, I don't agree that an innate fear of death is a motivator for believing in God. I see it this way: If there's an afterlife, great, I survive in one, way, shape, or form. If there's not, I cease to exist and it just won't matter; I won't care because I have ceased to exist. Either way, there's no need to fear what comes after death. :shrug:

It's only been with the rise of modern science over the last few hundred years, where man's knowledge has obviated myth and superstition as a way of life, but not replaced it, as people obviously still stubbornly cling to supernatural beliefs. And myth narratives (and writings) have been passed down for untold generations, from the time when man developed speech. Why humans latched onto the concept(myth) of a god or gods who control things, without simply just relying on their senses and logic, there may be no rock solid "scientific" answers to at the moment. And I have not researched the soft sciences yet on this subject, like human psychology. But, IMO, it's easy to posit that, if raised in a primitive tribe, or by wolves, we would adopt myths to explain the world around us, and maybe even invent our own Gods.

As I said, there's always a grain of truth in myth, and what you call stubborn I call smart. What's interesting to me is how you have no problem whatsoever with insulting the vast majority of humankind, some of whom are of far superior intellect than you and yet still believe. Also, you reject all of the collective information of mankind from millions of years for that of the last couple hundred. That doesn't come across as very rational to me.

 

[Radiant1]

This is proof positive that there is a God....

Feel that warm feeling in your heart as you watch this.... that's where God is....

[video=youtube;L49VXZwfup8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L49VXZwfup8[/video]

Scientists say that's an electrical charge.... God is that charge...

I played this in my office. Within 20 seconds four of my co-workers came over to my desk to enjoy the laughing babies with me. Pure joy!!

 

[Bird Dog]

I played this in my office. Within 20 seconds four of my co-workers came over to my desk to enjoy the laughing babies with me. Pure joy!!

Hey Rad, do you need your knives sharpened.
You've been slicing and dicing pretty good as always.......

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Again, why do you reject God because God can't be proven scientifically, but yet accept theories (not FACTS mind you) that you admit are suspect because they can be disproven? This reeks of double standards.

Show me true evidence for God, I'll be happy to 'believe'. Tell me, do you think it is fact that viruses, bacteria, and mutations in the body cause sickness? Or do you believe it to be evil spirits? Do you think the law of mass action in semiconductors is simply a theory, or a useful factual description of nature that the semi-conductor chips in your
computer you're typing on are based on? Is God really worth the trouble of rejecting? Science doesn't waste time trying to disprove the existence of God(s), or Unicorns for that matter. Science simply endeavors to understand the universe in which we live. To describe reality, as humans can understand it. Is superseding outdated theories with new and better ones a weakness, or a strength? Is it a double standard not to believe in something (God) for which no evidence exists, but to believe in scientific theories that continue to enable the advancement of mankind? I think not.

In addition, mankind was killing each other long before religion. That's a human trait period. And, science/technology goes a long way into finding new ways to kill people. Your double standards are still reeking.

Science/technology is focused on knowing the way the universe works and inventing technology to make our lives better. It's politicians and career military - many of whom in America are devout religious types - who are most interested in using science/technology to kill.

I won't hold my breath for you ever getting around to reading it. Why? I'm going to take an educated guess here and say because you're obviously indoctrinated to your atheistic point of view and have no real interest in doing so. So you agree that the probability of life as we know it is very low, but yet have a problem with the probability of the existence of a Higher Power we call God. There's those smelly double standards again.

Low probability or not, Life exists. Humans exist. Dinosaurs existed, most life that ever existed is now extinct. You exist, I think.
Where is your proof that God exists? Should I believe in all things unseen, unproven, because the probabilities of the universe do not favor the evolution of organic life in a planetary system?

Kepler telescope data indicates that at least 1 in 6 stars in the Milky Way Galaxy have earth-sized planets; that's 17 Billion earth sized planets. The key is to look for earth sized planets in the habitable zone where liquid water exists. Since our Milky Way Galaxy is one of possibly 400 Billion galaxies in the universe (Hubble telescope data), it's not a question of whether or not organic life has evolved elsewhere in the universe. It's a question of how pervasive and complex it is.

So you put faith in astrophysics (or cosmology if you will), which is a branch of metaphysics, but yet in a previous post held metaphysics to a different standard than the so-called hard-sciences (see post #63), interesting! In addition, you admit you have "faith" in something but yet disparage those who have "faith" in something else. We're now drowning in the funk of these double standards.

Your repeating narrative is getting quite boring!...blah, blah, blah

No matter what one believes about God, the fact remains that people believe there is a God and that has nothing to do with geographic location. As for indoctrination, see above. As for the personal God bit, we were never talking about a personal God but rather faith in God or a Higher Power period. We weren't discussing what people believe about God but simply that they believe. (See next post for further extrapolation).

You keep referring to a singular God, i.e., monotheism. I assume you realize, if you were an East Indian Hindu, you would believe in multiple Gods. It's a pretty easy deduction, don't know why you're belaboring this. Geography and place of birth does very much influence, not only whether you simply believe in a "God or Higher Power"; It also is the primary driver of your "chosen" religion, and whether you believe in one God or multiple Gods, or no God (Tibetan Buddhism for example).

Of course we're on different wavelengths because you are not open minded enough to entertain the notion that there is no dichotomy between faith and science. That's probably because you've been indoctrinated, or you have something to fear by it. Btw, I wasn't debating, I was dialoguing. There's a difference.

Hmmm, so I'm "close minded", "indoctrinated", "fearful". I suppose if I don't buy your assertions, you simply resort to ad hominem. Is that it Rad1? Do you think your ad hominem attacks are somehow more convincing? Wouldn't it be more satisfying for you to present convincing counter arguments? I'm expecting more from you.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Actually, you appeared to be referring to "mental strength", not me. Are you claiming that people of faith cannot be analytical, or that one has not used analysis to come to the conclusion that God exists?

People of faith can be analytical, however, many whom possess a certain level of intellectual prowess, know (and freely admit) it is futile to apply all their powers of critical thinking and reason to the God Question. "Faith" is non-analytical by nature.

Quote your source i.e. 93% because I've read stats stating 41%, which leaves over half of scientists having faith in a Higher Power of some sort. I suppose we can argue over the Agnostics. Agnostics by definition do indeed believe there is a Higher Power, they just don't happen to believe that Higher Power is involved in human affairs. That's a far different definition from an Atheist who believes there is no Higher Power at all. To equate them both into your 93% is intellectual dishonesty. In addition, you only have SUSPICIONS about scientists with faith in God and why, you don't really know but yet have no problem coming to a conclusion about it, which is interesting. Regardless, you're dodging the question. I asked what you thought of the findings of those scientists who do have faith in God. If you think them deluded for believing, then that puts you in the position of accepting the scientific discoveries of a deluded person does it not? Still smelling those double standards...

If an individual wishes to self-delude that he is literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus, but in all other discourse in his life applies scientific method, does this make his scientific endeavors invalid? I would say no. This is the dichotomy of some people's belief. They choose to use all their powers of intellect and critical thinking in all areas of their life, except religious faith. Think about it for a second. Generally speaking, in all areas of human discourse except religion, a different standard of critical thinking and skepticism normally applies.

It MAY or it MAY NOT. You really don't know, but never the less that doesn't explain why mankind decided to explain what it did not understand with a God and not some other explanation. The fact of the matter is that from the beginning of written history mankind has believe in God, and the majority of mankind still does regardless and in addition to recent scientific advances. You, Proxima, are in the minority. You, Proxima, may just be the one deluding yourself. MAYBE it's because you're upset that the world seems to be such a horrible place with wars, famine, etc and since you anthropomorphize God you think there must not be a God since these things happen. But, that's a MAYBE, I don't really know.

Perhaps Or possibly the simpler explanation is I really don't care. We exist, the universe exists. We live, we suffer, we die. That is all I really know. Unless we're just brains in vats.

Btw, I don't agree that an innate fear of death is a motivator for believing in God. I see it this way: If there's an afterlife, great, I survive in one, way, shape, or form. If there's not, I cease to exist and it just won't matter; I won't care because I have ceased to exist. Either way, there's no need to fear what comes after death. :shrug:

Similar to many contemporary believers I think. Some do genuinely fear death. Their ego feeds the desire for eternal life. I've said it before, there's much egoism in religion. To believe that the universe was created with you in mind, that you are more important than all other animals on earth, to believe you are more than a life limited organic life form, that you have an eternal soul....all these things to me smacks of man's egoism.

As I said, there's always a grain of truth in myth, and what you call stubborn I call smart. What's interesting to me is how you have no problem whatsoever with insulting the vast majority of humankind, some of whom are of far superior intellect than you and yet still believe. Also, you reject all of the collective information of mankind from millions of years for that of the last couple hundred. That doesn't come across as very rational to me.

My objective should be to only share the way I think, although I do think religion deserves ridicule and gets too much of a free pass in human discourse. I have difficulty seeing "grains of truth in myth" so feel free to point them out to me. If we don't reject FALSE "collective information of mankind from millions of years" for the last few hundred; then I think we would be making a bigger mistake. Yeah, there are a few things we should keep from ancient philosophy. But for the most part, the rest can be jettisoned. Don't know about you, but would rather not go back to bloodletting as a way to cure disease; I for one would not be here.

 

[mamatutu]

I didn't want to quote your whole response to R1, PC, but I wanted to reply. I have been conflicted my whole life. My dad was a geophysicist for Standard Oil, then Amoco oil. He was the guy that said drill here. I have so many fossils now that my dad is gone, I won't be able to move them. However, he was a believer in God and the whole story, even though he found evidence otherwise. And, to throw in the mix, we have a huge percentage of Native American blood in our gene pool. My daughter just married into a very devout Catholic Italian family, so we have that, too. My point is that you make a lot of sense. The whole idea of the World, what has happened, and what is happening is overwhelming. We have to choose what we believe. I really like your posts. Not many take the time that you do to express your opinion. We all need food for thought. Thanks.

Edit: To stay on topic. I don't fear death. It will come to us all. Then I can sleep. But, seriously, we just found out that one of my daughter's friends has breast cancer, and it is so bad that nothing can be done. She is 30. I have no problems compared to that. God bless and Merry Christmas to all on this Forum.

 

[hotcoffee]

I didn't want to quote your whole response to R1, PC, but I wanted to reply. I have been conflicted my whole life. My dad was a geophysicist for Standard Oil, then Amoco oil. He was the guy that said drill here. I have so many fossils now that my dad is gone, I won't be able to move them. However, he was a believer in God and the whole story, even though he found evidence otherwise. And, to throw in the mix, we have a huge percentage of Native American blood in our gene pool. My daughter just married into a very devout Catholic Italian family, so we have that, too. My point is that you make a lot of sense. The whole idea of the World, what has happened, and what is happening is overwhelming. We have to choose what we believe. I really like your posts. Not many take the time that you do to express your opinion. We all need food for thought. Thanks.

Edit: To stay on topic. I don't fear death. It will come to us all. Then I can sleep. But, seriously, we just found out that one of my daughter's friends has breast cancer, and it is so bad that nothing can be done. She is 30. I have no problems compared to that. God bless and Merry Christmas to all on this Forum.

The one question that comes to mind when I read that someone is facing death is "Is she a Christian?". Those of us who have a terminal diagnosis have hope of a new adventure if we are Christians. Those who don't are faced with an end. You might say we are in the light of hope and we are happy to hand those who don't believe a candle of faith so they can find their way.

Those of us who are Christians.... don't want to leave our family, friends, or projects unfinished... but we look forward to the new adventure Heaven offers. We have hope of a new adventure.... faith that Jesus is the Messiah.... and Love for all those around us!

 

[Radiant1]

Show me true evidence for God, I'll be happy to 'believe'.

You're certainly happy enough to believe theories that are suspect and can later be proven false. Some of the "evidence" you previously believed wasn't true as it turns out. So why do you have a problem with God? This is my point to you that you fail to comprehend for whatever personal reasons you have. Why do you suppose that people ask the question, "What started the Big Bang?" I'll tell you, because they know there has to be something more, and this type of questioning is the basis for scientific inquiry, is it not? And btw, doesn't the Big Bang Theory contradict the first law of thermodynamics? Does the Big Bang Theory not state that something came from nothing? Is that even scientifically possible? You see, people believe in God because they know there's something more than what science is currently able to tell us. Until science can explain everything of the universe as fact (not theory but fact), then you might have something, but science can't do that and I have doubts that it will ever will.

Science/technology is focused on knowing the way the universe works and inventing technology to make our lives better. It's politicians and career military - many of whom in America are devout religious types - who are most interested in using science/technology to kill.

Who do you think you're kidding? Not one war and/or the subsequent weapons developed by a secular or communist regime (USA, Soviet Union, etc) was done in the name of God. War and/or killing is a human endeavor regardless of one's faith or lack thereof. I'm not sure why you have such a hard time admitting this except for the fact that it doesn't fit with your usual (or should I say indoctrinated?) argument. Vrai is also a proclaimed Atheist and she has no problem with this, which is probably why I have far more respect for her than I do you. I could be wrong, but I don't recall the Manhattan Project (as an example) to be for the purpose of making our lives better, except to bomb the fuck out of Japan and kill a whole lotta humans. :ahem:

Should I believe in all things unseen, unproven, because the probabilities of the universe do not favor the evolution of organic life in a planetary system?

Science has proven there are things unseen, so what's your problem? As I said from the beginning if you stop thinking of God as some old man in the sky then you might not have much problem with the concept. Apparently, you cling to childish notions when it comes to God. I'm pointing out to you a different way of thinking. But, it's up to you to choose to ponder on it or not. Btw, you never answered my question regarding quantum/string theory and by it's use the possibility of explaining all of those unseen things.

Your repeating narrative is getting quite boring!...blah, blah, blah

Stop with your double standards, and I'll stop repeating myself. Easy (or at least it should be).

You keep referring to a singular God, i.e., monotheism. I assume you realize, if you were an East Indian Hindu, you would believe in multiple Gods. It's a pretty easy deduction, don't know why you're belaboring this. Geography and place of birth does very much influence, not only whether you simply believe in a "God or Higher Power"; It also is the primary driver of your "chosen" religion, and whether you believe in one God or multiple Gods, or no God (Tibetan Buddhism for example).

Singular God, many Gods, it doesn't matter because the point remains the same; and we weren't talking religion, but rather faith. Apparently, you can't accept that because, again, it doesn't fit with your usual (should I say indoctrinated?) argument.

Hmmm, so I'm "close minded", "indoctrinated", "fearful". I suppose if I don't buy your assertions, you simply resort to ad hominem. Is that it Rad1? Do you think your ad hominem attacks are somehow more convincing? Wouldn't it be more satisfying for you to present convincing counter arguments? I'm expecting more from you.

Truly, if that was an ad hominem attack, then you're guilty of having done so numerous times in this thread and toward the majority of people who live on this planet. And yes, I think you're close-minded, indoctrinated, and fearful, which is no different than you think of people with faith. You mad, bro? Get over yourself and face the fact that it just might be true of you just as it is anyone else.

 

[Radiant1]

People of faith can be analytical, however, many whom possess a certain level of intellectual prowess, know (and freely admit) it is futile to apply all their powers of critical thinking and reason to the God Question. "Faith" is non-analytical by nature.

There are people of faith simply due to their analytical thinking. Don't think I've not noticed, once again, your subtle insult. I'm sure those of faith who could mentally run circles around us both find your statement about prowess amusing.

They choose to use all their powers of intellect and critical thinking in all areas of their life, except religious faith. Think about it for a second. Generally speaking, in all areas of human discourse except religion, a different standard of critical thinking and skepticism normally applies.

That may be true for some, but not true for others, and since it's not true for others your point is moot.

Perhaps Or possibly the simpler explanation is I really don't care. We exist, the universe exists. We live, we suffer, we die. That is all I really know. Unless we're just brains in vats.

But you do care. If you didn't care you wouldn't be posting in the religion forum to begin with.

Similar to many contemporary believers I think. Some do genuinely fear death. Their ego feeds the desire for eternal life. I've said it before, there's much egoism in religion. To believe that the universe was created with you in mind, that you are more important than all other animals on earth, to believe you are more than a life limited organic life form, that you have an eternal soul....all these things to me smacks of man's egoism.

All men whether they have faith or not have ego. It's what we're made of. You know, ego, id, superego and all that stuff, but that's soft science and you aren't interested in that. And just an FYI, I don't think people believe the universe was made with mankind alone in mind; however, it is true that mankind is far superior than the other animals. Even you can't deny that.

My objective should be to only share the way I think, although I do think religion deserves ridicule and gets too much of a free pass in human discourse. I have difficulty seeing "grains of truth in myth" so feel free to point them out to me. If we don't reject FALSE "collective information of mankind from millions of years" for the last few hundred; then I think we would be making a bigger mistake. Yeah, there are a few things we should keep from ancient philosophy. But for the most part, the rest can be jettisoned. Don't know about you, but would rather not go back to bloodletting as a way to cure disease; I for one would not be here.

I already told you about Genesis and it's basic description of evolution. There ya go, truth in myth. Btw, many people have a misunderstanding of the definition of myth. From Merriam-Webster -- Myth (noun) - Traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the worldview of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. Myth does not necessarily equate with fiction.

You amuse me. First, because you reject what you believe to be "FALSE 'collective information of mankind from millions of years'" but yet have no problem accepting that the information of mankind from the last few hundred, which ironically, in some cases has been proven false by your own admission and, I might add, will likely continue to be. I think that's what's called cognitive dissonance, but I could be wrong.

Well, you've shared the way you think, as have I. I'm not out to make you a believer. My only points to you were 1) there's another way to think of God than the childish old man in the sky routine, and 2) there isn't by necessity a dichotomy between faith and science. You've proven yourself to not be so open minded about these two things, and that's okay not many are, but perhaps it gives you something to contemplate when you're ready for it.

Our discussion (or debate as you would have it) has pretty much broken down (as all discussions eventually do) and has become non-informative. It truly has taken away from hotcoffee's intention of this thread. I have grown to have much affection for her over the years on this forum, so I will allow you the last word. Besides, I'm quite satisfied that I've sufficiently made the points I wanted to.

Have a blessed holiday season and may the coming year bring you new discoveries and personal enlightenment regardless of where they stem from.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

You amuse me. First, because you reject what you believe to be "FALSE 'collective information of mankind from millions of years'" but yet have no problem accepting that the information of mankind from the last few hundred, which ironically, in some cases has been proven false by your own admission and, I might add, will likely continue to be. I think that's what's called cognitive dissonance, but I could be wrong.

Well, you've shared the way you think, as have I. I'm not out to make you a believer. My only points to you were 1) there's another way to think of God than the childish old man in the sky routine, and 2) there isn't by necessity a dichotomy between faith and science. You've proven yourself to not be so open minded about these two things, and that's okay not many are, but perhaps it gives you something to contemplate when you're ready for it.

Our discussion (or debate as you would have it) has pretty much broken down (as all discussions eventually do) and has become non-informative. It truly has taken away from hotcoffee's intention of this thread. I have grown to have much affection for her over the years on this forum, so I will allow you the last word. Besides, I'm quite satisfied that I've sufficiently made the points I wanted to.

Have a blessed holiday season and may the coming year bring you new discoveries and personal enlightenment regardless of where they stem from.

Rad1, I have enjoyed our "dialogue" and contrary the perception I've given you, your points are well stated and I 'believe' have some merit. As for your "cognitive dissonance" remark, I just have one thing to say...'psychologically project' much?

A quote that sums up my thinking quite well...
“If we wish to draw philosophical conclusions about our own existence, our significance, and the significance of the universe itself, our conclusions should be based on empirical knowledge. A truly open mind means forcing our imaginations to conform to the evidence of reality, and not vice versa, whether or not we like the implications.”
― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

Rad1, Merry Christmas! and...

Shanti, Shanti, Shanti
Peace, Peace, Peace
The divine light in me sees and honors the divine light in you
I honor the light, love, truth, beauty & peace within you