reply to post by Ghost147
Why is it illogical to think in a way of proof, testing and constantly backed up evidence? Wouldnt it be illogical to think that something that
we cannot prove, test, see, hear, watch, witness or anything of the sort to not only exist somehow
I have specifically addressed the issue of evidence. What is seen is endless complexity and apparent design in that the universe contains order, which
we summarize as 'laws', and further apparent design in that living organisms are by their very essence extraordinarily complex in their
physiological makeup. And that is not to mention the interrelated, intertwined role each plays in the overall scheme of things.
When it comes to life-forms the information contained within DNA alone is such a wonderful example of exquisitely purposefully structured
information that that alone is sufficient grounds for saying evidence for design and a designer is an entirely logical conclusion.
As to not being able to prove, test, see, hear, watch, witness, etc. we can do all of that with respect to the vastly complex systems I have referred
to. However with respect to God himself your request to be able to do these things is exposed as illogical at the first hurdle: you fail to appreciate
that that which is conceived to have brought the entire universe into being
must by its very nature exist beyond that which it created.
Your premise is no different to a blind man saying he will not accept things are real unless he can touch, hear or feel them.
...but create everything for no apparent reason?
The fact you are unaware of the reason does not equate to there being no reason. I most certainly believe there was and remains a reason this all came
into being. A very real reason. Another day, another discussion.
You then state that you now have evidence to prove god.
When people quote you as saying something you did not it tends to weaken their case considerably. I said:
The evidence that God is real is there...
Evidence. I said there is evidence, and laid some of it out. I then specifically said proof is not what I claim:
What is not there is total, seeing-is-believing proof.
Nothing ambiguous there.
...after over-looking the obvious hypocritical view behind "evidence is wrong, but i have evidence to prove I'm right"...
Again I never said anything about any evidence being wrong, but my evidence being right. Yet another straw man argument!
...lets say in the future (near future) that a computer were to become as complex, would you renounce your faith?
If you think near future you have no idea of the complexity of life.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CHECK OUT A SIMPLIFICATION OF WHAT GOES ON WITHIN A SINGLE HUMAN CELL
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frankly to think humans could ever create such marvels & put billions of them together in working, self-replicating order defies reality. (Gauntlet
swiftly hits the floor.)
You also are implying that anyone not a theist, must believe in evolution.
Without insisting there are no exceptions, the fact is that is indeed nearly always the choice. Interesting how when one challenges the mathematical
and logical basis of intricate, purposeful design by chance "It doesn't have to have been evolution" is a frequent retort. Suggests a real
insecurity with respect to evolution.
We don't fear punishment, we don't fear a devil, we don't believe that this is only a test, we take life as a gift for we know it is our
only one.
Really? Now here's a thing. You
know something you can't prove. That's faith if ever I saw it.
there is barely any evidence that this Jesus actually existed
I, and many hundreds of millions of others beg to differ. Another day, another discussion.
The majority of figures that wrote about this Jesus didnt actually witness him, or even were alive during his time. Which would declare those
words hearsay (heard from another).
On the contrary, only those who were eyewitnesses wrote the New Testament. Another day, another discussion.
Religion for most is a way to stay ignorant, for they, deep inside their subconscious mind, are afraid of knowledge.
Rejecting God for most is a way to stay ignorant, for they, deep inside their subconscious mind, are afraid of judgement.
Which one is more illogical?
I maintain that there is powerful logic, not to mention evidence, behind faith in God. Each individual is welcome to weigh the arguments and reach
their own conclusion.
[edit on 24/12/08 by pause4thought]
Sorry I said several thousand...it
felt like it though. 
