reply to post by eleven44
Okay, but while you're busy arguing against the posterchild of christianity that you've made up in your head, you're missing what other
people are actually saying to you.
Sure, most Christians do not understand God.
That doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
To begin with, the "posterchild of Christianity", as you call it, is an amalgamation of every impression I have ever been given by self-professed
Christians and Judaics. Don't blame me, blame your brothers
. I would argue that if any god exists, no one would understand such a being
because no matter what aspect you choose in all of the aspects available for human observation, not a single human being on earth is so completely
knowledgeable as to fully comprehend the paragon embodiment of such an aspect.
In other words, if a god does exist, not a single one of us would know anything about it because the sheer volume of such a comprehension eludes the
paltry capacity our biology provides for us.
But let me guess: you
would claim to understand what so many others have failed to grasp in just as much time and devoted energy spent studying
and contemplating and trusting in the exact same materials in yourself, searching for the exact same answers as yourself, yet they have fallen short
where you have not. Is this what you would tell me? Or are you just as ignorant as the "most Christians" you describe above?
Most people who sing the praises of the most recent scientific theories probably don't truly understand them either. Does that mean science
You can open up a book, use the bibliography to isolate every material used to compile the data in the book, have an interview with the authors, track
down the scientists and analysts who provided those authors with data, review their records and notes with them, listen in person as they explain
their findings in painstakingly meticulous detail, and eventually be left without a single doubt that their work was done to the absolute best of
human capacity using methods that leave a highly narrow margin of error and eliminate the majority of bias.
In other words, science can be verified even in the face of exaggerated hearsay and idiot spectators. Repeatedly, users have attempted to subtly
discredit science and its representatives and methods in their discussions with me, and yet all have failed to disprove the track record and
reliability of science in contrast with the chosen methods of religion - which, I might add, expresses not an ounce of shame in admitting that they
frequently place faith over fact, something that science has avoided with a vengeance...with obvious results.
I think the below image says all that need be said: