ABCNews Nightline Faceoff: Can Kirk Cameron Proove that God Exists?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Another argument, the atheist one, is if I can't find it or haven't been there, it doesn't exist, is pretty presumptious.

Why? If I see a hoof print in Banff is it presumptuous to think it wasn't made by a zebra or a unicorn? Is it presumptuous to be skeptical if someone claims they have an invisible dragon in their garage? I think you're presuming that an atheist "believes" there is no God in the same way a theist believes it, but that's not true at all.

Most atheists believe there is no God because that is the default position in any situation in the absence of evidence. Most atheists would gladly change their mind if real evidence came to light. There may be a teapot in orbit around the sun between earth and mars, too small to be detected, but not believing in it isn't presumptuous, it's reasonable skepticism.

The final answer is if I have a personal experience, there is no debate. Words and thoughts can be twisted, arguments won and lost, but experience is king.

But experience can easily be twisted, misinterpreted, and manipulated as well. Our memories are not very accurate and are malleable. People often see, hear, and feel things that aren't at all real. Experience then is subjective, not objective.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

Why? If I see a hoof print in Banff is it presumptuous to think it wasn't made by a zebra or a unicorn? Is it presumptuous to be skeptical if someone claims they have an invisible dragon in their garage? I think you're presuming that an atheist "believes" there is no God in the same way a theist believes it, but that's not true at all.

Which is why—as a theist—I am offended by the entire premise that the existence of God could possibly meet the scientific requirement by which the atheist interprets his world. Those, like Comfort and Cameron, who are convinced that their faith comes via "proof", and that they are duty bound to rationalize their faith are wasting their time.

The fundamentalist position on this issue of science and faith is that the enlightenment was horribly damaging to the Christian faith because it provided a vehicle through which humankind could dismiss the supernatural. The real damage was done when Christain evangelists became convinced that they could subject the substance of their own faith to scientific inquiry. If I am absolutely honest in my rational approach, then I must deny that God exists; to do otherwise would be falascious. This is why my spirituality is not a matter of rational inquiry; I believe what I believe and my belief in God may be considered irreducibly complex. I understand where it came from, how it was fostered, and how it works, but despite all the good reasons to disbelieve God's existence, I simply cannot bring myself to do so.

Originally Posted by photon

Most atheists believe there is no God because that is the default position in any situation in the absence of evidence. Most atheists would gladly change their mind if real evidence came to light.

Which is why "most atheists" will remain defiantly skeptical. There is no real evidence and there never will be. By the same token, the vast majority of the faithful will never be convinced otherwise, but not because evidence is on our side. My faith is as complicated as my love for my wife. Emotions may be little more than a matter of chemical reactions which have long since outgrown their original function, but this is no reason for me to abandon what I feel so deeply engrained in my own psyche.

Originally Posted by photon

But experience can easily be twisted, misinterpreted, and manipulated as well. Our memories are not very accurate and are malleable. People often see, hear, and feel things that aren't at all real. Experience then is subjective, not objective.

Just because we are capable of recognizing this, does this convince us that our own memories are anything less than purely accurate? I've studied a little the effects of collective and social memory on culture, and while I understand that my own recollections are conditioned by my own Sitz im Leban, I cannot change them. To that end, my experiences with God are subjective, personal, culturally conditioned, and prone to varying degrees of interpretation. I recognize this, but I cannot deny them any more than I can change my own recollections of the past.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Simple question for everyone.

What is the foundation for your belief, or disbelief, in God?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Simple question for everyone.

What is the foundation for your belief, or disbelief, in God?

I don't know if I would be comfortable answering that question, is the basis of this question to assault ones beliefs on a public forum, or to gather information to see similarities between believers and non believers?

My basis is simple.

I do believe there's a god, and the basis to that is not based around creationism, and not based around a all mighty all knowing being.

My basis and to me it makes sense on a cosmic scheme, because frankly if there's no greater purpose or greater plan, and when we die there's no soul then our lives our basically meaningless, so there's no point in being a good purpose and living with a set of guidlines at all. There's no point in accumulating knowledge, and there's certainly no pofit in perfoming an act for the betterment of your fellow man.

I also look at the world, and the complexitites of the universe, and figure that something beyond a mere explosion or chemical reaction put it into place.

Now I do strongly believe in evolution, but I also believe that the initial reactions that sparked life on this and possibly other worlds, and the explosion that created the universe were intentional designed acts.

Now whether god is some kid with a massive science project in shoe box that he's forgotten about, or a master planner who acted as the initial catalyst to get things going, I don't know. For all I know, the old song about god playing chess with the devil for possession of the whole shooting match is true.

But I will say this, I don't think god is watching, I don't think he dictates our actions, or even talks to us. I do think he's sitting back in the shadows to see how the whole thing plays out, but he's not going to intervene.

I believe there was a Jesus, but I don't strongly believe that he was the son of god in a literal sense.

But until I die, and either go to the pearly gates, or the fire below, or just rot, I won't know the truth.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I still think much of this debate is going nowhere because there isn't a definition of what is meant by God...

If one defines God as a conscious entity with free will and unlimited powers you run into all kinds of logical issues which are tough to untangle...e.g. If God is perfect then he cannot make a mistake, then how can he have free will (he can't choose to make a mistake)?....Can God make an object so heavy that he cannot lift it etc....anyways these kind of arguments are IMO kind of pointless not unlike debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Textcritic mentions how the enlightenment allowed Western culture to have a vehicle to dismiss the Supernatural. An interesting thought, but I have a hard time believing that there is anything Supernatural...anything that is possible to occur in this Universe is, by definition, natural. Phenomena that could be called by some as Supernatural is perhaps just natural phenomena not well understood by the mainstream. So I guess what I am saying is that 'Miracles' and "Supernatural' events are natural events that are poorly understood. Not that that makes them any less amazing and spectacular, I am just saying there is only one set of rules for the universe and those are not subject to cheating...

An argument for 'God' (and I don't mean a Judeo Christian Dude with a Beard) that keeps me interested is the prime cause argument. Using the 'Cause and effect' logic, everything that has happend was caused by something previously. If you carry this chain of C&E back...waaaaayyyy back the Universe started with the big bang, which is, using our best understanding today, the 'first' effect...but something must have caused that to happen...the 'prime' cause if you will. So what set this Universe in motion? And on a related note, what established the rules (of math and physics)? Some would say it has to be something and whatever that something is can be defined as 'God'



So while Donkey's like Cameron and Comfort are wasting oxygen, there are some basic philisophical questions that science is impotent to answer at this point...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Simple question for everyone.

What is the foundation for your belief, or disbelief, in God?

What do you mean by "God"?

An agnostic would say the question of God's existence is ultimately unknowable.

An athiest (like Dawkins) would say there is no reliable evidence for God, that the question of God's existence CAN be answered scientifically (I'd like to hear a rebuttal why not), and based on what we do know now about the universe, the probability of God's existence is very low.

On Irreducible Complexity:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,12...ichard-Dawkins

The more improbable the specified complexity, the more improbable the god capable of designing it. Darwinism comes through the regress unscathed, indeed triumphant. Improbability, the phenomenon we seek to explain, is more or less defined as that which is difficult to explain. It is obviously self-defeating to try to explain it by invoking a creative being of even greater improbability.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Simple question for everyone.

What is the foundation for your belief, or disbelief, in God?

After having given it a lot of reflection, I realized I just don't know either way, so I'm agnostic. It's not really a pressing issue to me.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Which is why—as a theist—I am offended by the entire premise that the existence of God could possibly meet the scientific requirement by which the atheist interprets his world. Those, like Comfort and Cameron, who are convinced that their faith comes via "proof", and that they are duty bound to rationalize their faith are wasting their time.

I totally agree. With your whole post actually, I think it accurately describes the mindset of an honest theist that is open to science's findings. Like you say, where the problems come in is when someone tries to prove their faith, or prove a tenant of their faith when science clearly says something about it (like a global flood).

Just because we are capable of recognizing this, does this convince us that our own memories are anything less than purely accurate? I've studied a little the effects of collective and social memory on culture, and while I understand that my own recollections are conditioned by my own Sitz im Leban, I cannot change them. To that end, my experiences with God are subjective, personal, culturally conditioned, and prone to varying degrees of interpretation. I recognize this, but I can deny them any more than I can change my own recollections of the past.

I think it's sufficient to be aware that the mind is susceptible. For some that combined with their experiences convinces them that there's nothing there.

That's one of the powers of science; it removes things like confirmation bias and such.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Simple question for everyone.

What is the foundation for your belief, or disbelief, in God?

In truth, the "foundation" is the fact that my parents are non-believers. The impact of one's parents' beliefs takes hold in the first few years, long before people are capable of making rational decisions for themselves.

That said, I do believe that my disbelief is the rational position, and I'd have to see pretty convincing evidence to believe otherwise. Photon's orbiting teapot serves as a pretty good example of why I don't believe...it may exist, but the observations (lack thereof) are equally well-explained by a much simpler hypothesis that there is no teapot. Occam's razor.

Of course, we're not looking for teapots. I can't rationally rule out the existence of some higher power, because I realize that if there is such a thing, we're likely incapable of comprehending its nature. It's certainly not a man in a white beard sitting in the clouds! Without knowing what we're looking for, though, it's pretty difficult to say whether or not we've found it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

...Textcritic mentions how the enlightenment allowed Western culture to have a vehicle to dismiss the Supernatural. An interesting thought, but I have a hard time believing that there is anything Supernatural...anything that is possible to occur in this Universe is, by definition, natural. Phenomena that could be called by some as Supernatural is perhaps just natural phenomena not well understood by the mainstream. So I guess what I am saying is that 'Miracles' and "Supernatural' events are natural events that are poorly understood. Not that that makes them any less amazing and spectacular, I am just saying there is only one set of rules for the universe and those are not subject to cheating...

My point was made through a manner of perspective. You and I have the benefit of being on this side of the enlightenment; before the eighteenth century, the "supernatural" was a very real phenomenon for virtually everyone in the Western World. Things were a result of supernatural causes simply because they defied explanation. From the perspective of theists dependant upon God to allow for such things, the enlightenment presented a radical and terrifying shift in thinking. It was "allowed" inasmuch as prior to the enlightenment, God was culturally pervasive.

All that is to say that I agree about your understanding of "supernatural"; it is a dividing line between what we know and what we can only guess at. Science and technology continues to push the line further and further away. The question is, will it ever be eliminated entirely? Until it is, theists will continue to use this line as a guage for determining the character and impact of their god.

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

So while Donkey's like Cameron and Comfort are wasting oxygen, there are some basic philisophical questions that science is impotent to answer at this point...

Absolutely! It is a mistake to move the dialogue from the venue of the humanities to that of the sciences. This is why I believe that Gould is right about non-overlapping magesterium, and why Cameron, Comfort and Dawkins are all wrong in their conviction that "evidence" will eventually settle the argument once and for all.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Simple question for everyone.

What is the foundation for your belief, or disbelief, in God?

It is not a simple question at all. The "foundation" for my belief crumbled a long time ago, but has done little to affect the viability and strength of my own convictions that there is a god.

I was raised an evangelical, and from a very early age was taught that God, through his only begotten son Jesus, had paid the penalty which has left me exhempt from the effects of sin. I was indoctrinated to believe that my choice to say the sinner's prayer produced for me a golden ticket which I could cash in on the day I died for an eternity in Heaven with the Lord. I was ceratin of the existence of things like hell, angels, demons, body and soul; that the Bible was purely accurate and trustworthy, and that religion had nothing to do with culture and history.

I have been a student of the Bible, culture and religion for the better part of the last two decades now, and my studies and experiences have been enough to completely obliterate this foundation...Yet I remain a theist. The Bible is not innerant, nor is it an accurate account of history and doctrine, yet it is still the Word of God. There is no literal heaven or hell, yet eternity is something for which I continue to strive. There may not be any such thing as cosmic "purpose", yet I am quite certain that my relationship with god and the impact this has on my character and conduct inevitably "means" something...

Do you find any of that even remotely simple?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Simple question for everyone.

What is the foundation for your belief, or disbelief, in God?

I don't have a belief in a god on any level. Whether it be the Christian God or the cosmic God or the inner God.

I have given organized Christian religion a chance, I really did. But there so many hypocrisies with the church and the bible and I could never accept it. I didn't like the idea of a God that created us to basically worship him. What I got out of it was that God was a big insecure ego driven hypocrite. Now before anyone freaks out at me for that, don't bother. That is not all I got out of it, but it is something that never made sense to me about the Christian religion. Don't quote and tell me what I should have learned or how I got the message wrong, because that was my experience and I really don't care what you get out of your Sunday mornings.

After I started to learn more and think for myself about it. I started connecting science and religion. And the more I learned about science, the less I thought of religion. I see the two essentially at odds. I enjoy science, it has brought of a multitude of amazing things into our lives. Religion seems to be trying to stop it. Either by actively stopping it (stem cell etc.) or by saying answers are not worth looking into because it was God (creationism etc.). Instances like this make be believe that religion is hurting us as a species. It seems to be promoting anti-intellectualism and credulousness.

When I look at the universe and it's vastness. I just can't believe it was created by a being. The universe and it's working are so complex, so if it had a creator, that creator must have been infinitely more complex. It seems so unlikely that there is a creator in my mind. See Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot, it's not that I got that belief from him, but rather he can articulate it much better than me.

Another reason why I don't believe in a religious god, or a personal God is because I don't need one in my life. I don't need to live in fear. Fear of if I don't live a moral life I will spend eternity in hell. I don't need that to live a just and moral life. I honestly believe that most "religious" people don't either. I think that religion served a purpose, but it's no longer needed.

I am a skeptic for such matters. So I can't totally rule it out, but until I see something that will convince me otherwise I will not believe in it. Frankly the more I learn about religion and God and similar things, the less of a chance I give it as being plausible.

This is a just a sample of why I don't believe in a God. I'm not the best at expressing my words onto a message board, but this is a decent shot for now.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I still think much of this debate is going nowhere because there isn't a definition of what is meant by God...

That's true.. in this context since we're talking aobut Cameron and Comfort, and since the predominant religion in NA is Christianity, I think typically people mean the personal God of the Bible.

Others mean Spinoza's God; Einstein said by telegram "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." Spinoza saw God as Nature and the Universe, or the substance of the universe, not a being with an identity.

The thing is some people like me come from a strong fundumentalist literalist background, so when they say atheist, they're talking about being atheist about the personal God of the Bible, not necessarily about Spinoza's God. (EDIT: And I wouldn't necessarily put myself as an atheist, I'm in seek mode)

So yeah, it's always good to clarify what's being talked about.

An argument for 'God' (and I don't mean a Judeo Christian Dude with a Beard) that keeps me interested is the prime cause argument. Using the 'Cause and effect' logic, everything that has happend was caused by something previously. If you carry this chain of C&E back...waaaaayyyy back the Universe started with the big bang, which is, using our best understanding today, the 'first' effect...but something must have caused that to happen...the 'prime' cause if you will. So what set this Universe in motion? And on a related note, what established the rules (of math and physics)? Some would say it has to be something and whatever that something is can be defined as 'God'

Ah, but cause and effect are artifacts of time.. without time there's no cause and effect, or if time flowed the other way effect would precede time EDIT: Cause rather, effect would precede cause.

Time is a funtumental part of our universe, but there's no reason to expect that wherever our universe came from has the same rules. Possibly the origin of the universe is from an environment so strange that we can't possibly understand it. It's likely because we're finding our own universe is beyond our understanding (Feynman said of quantum mechanics, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics").

One idea as to the source of the values that define the laws of our universe is there's many universes, all with different values and parameters.. if that's the case then life developing in a universe with the right values becomes a matter of natural selection, something perfectly reasonable and natural. That's just a thought though.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Burninator

After I started to learn more and think for myself about it. I started connecting science and religion. And the more I learned about science, the less I thought of religion. I see the two essentially at odds. I enjoy science, it has brought of a multitude of amazing things into our lives. Religion seems to be trying to stop it. Either by actively stopping it (stem cell etc.) or by saying answers are not worth looking into because it was God (creationism etc.). Instances like this make be believe that religion is hurting us as a species. It seems to be promoting anti-intellectualism and credulousness.

Perhaps we should categorize our opinions of "religion" much in the same that we do "science" Afterall, there is pure scientific research which results in an increase of knowledge, in progress, and in small but perceptible improvements in the quality of life. There is also "junk science", such as creationism, eugenics, etc. that does nothing more than perpetuate long-standing myths and serves as a roadblock for real progress to occur.

I would argue that in a similar fashion there is pure religion like that which was defined by the author of the Epistle of James: "to care for the needs of widows and orphans in their distress; to keep oneself unaffected by worldly gain." In my estimation, pure religion is that which promotes goodness, generousity, and unity. There are Buddhists who manage this through being atheistic; this occurs in my own church through free breakfast programmes for poor kids, and through service to the much less fortunate in our community. Atheists manage to acheive this through their own equally religious commitment to the natural world. This is very different from "junk religion", which—like "junk science"—serves no good at all, and only promotes fear, inequity, intolerance, hate, war and injustice.

You are probably a bit jaded by your own experiences with "religion", but take it from someone for whom his own religious conviction actually produces something tangible and meaningful: it is not all so worthless.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Perhaps we should categorize our opinions of "religion" much in the same that we do "science" Afterall, there is pure scientific research which results in an increase of knowledge, in progress, and in small but perceptible improvements in the quality of life. There is also "junk science", such as creationism, eugenics, etc. that does nothing more than perpetuate long-standing myths and serves as a roadblock for real progress to occur.

I would argue that in a similar fashion there is pure religion like that which was defined by the author of the Epistle of James: "to care for the needs of widows and orphans in their distress; to keep oneself unaffected by worldly gain." In my estimation, pure religion is that which promotes goodness, generousity, and unity. There are Buddhists who manage this through being atheistic; this occurs in my own church through free breakfast programmes for poor kids, and through service to the much less fortunate in our community. Atheists manage to acheive this through their own equally religious commitment to the natural world. This is very different from "junk religion", which—like "junk science"—serves no good at all, and only promotes fear, inequity, intolerance, hate, war and injustice.
You are probably a bit jaded by your own experiences with "religion", but take it from someone for whom his own religious conviction actually produces something tangible and meaningful: it is not all so worthless.

I don't have a problem with that type of religion or way of life. As I am sure you don't have a problem with the atheists that live a similar life (absence of god in the atheists case of course). But unfortunately it is the "junk religion" that is the most out spoken and the most influential. If everyone, keeps to themselves so to speak, and respects the other persons beliefs and doesn't push their will on them, then we wouldn't have a problem. The ones that push their beliefs on society are the reasons that I could be "jaded". I assume you would feel the same way toward such outspoken atheists, grouping them in the category of the "junk".

At times I may lump all religious people in the same group, which I admit is unfair for the ones who are not promoting their junk. But atheists also get put into the camp that want to end religion, when we do not. Which could be the reason that I may sometimes do that.

I am not saying religion is worthless. I definitely agree that is lots of good that be derived from it, but unfortunately there is lots of poor things that can arise from religion as well. All I was getting at is that people don't have to get their morals or sense of meaning from religion, in my mind it can found other places.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Simple question for everyone.

What is the foundation for your belief, or disbelief, in God?

I like this question. My belief is based on my experience and it isn't something I have to rely on my memory for proof or re-enforcement as Photon tries to infer. I can experience it now, while I'm typing, it's mostly a matter of choice and practise.

Another question, trying to define who or what god is, is just man's mind wanting to create him in our image and then you have religion. I don't like religion much.

There is something inside me greater than my mind. My mind is only another tool that needs to be harnassed. Read the Bhagavad Gita for a talk on this sometime inner conflict. Or how about the native elder who said ' inside me there are two wolves fighting.' the boy asks 'grandfather, who will win'. Grandfather answers, 'whoever I feed', or maybe it's 'whomever', English isn't his first language.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I like this question. My belief is based on my experience and it isn't something I have to rely on my memory for proof or re-enforcement as Photon tries to infer. I can experience it now, while I'm typing, it's mostly a matter of choice and practise.

But it is something you rely on memory and reenforcement for.. you don't experience it 24/7 (ie you don't experience it when you are asleep), but you don't alter your beliefs based on that fact (nor should you). So you do exercise some selection. You remember your beliefs whenever you need to think about them, and those memories of what your beliefs are are subject to the same rules as other memories.

And what about those who wish to experience it, while they're typing, but do not? Their inner experience is just as valid as someone who does experience it.

How can an individual tell the difference between a real internal experience, and one that is generated by the mind? One that is generated by social expectations and pressures, choices and the mind's need to keep thing consistent? How can one tell the difference between a spiritual experience induced by manipulating the brain or the body (fasting for example), and a spiritual experience supposedly attributed to God in a similar manipulation of the body? These are honest questions for myself I have that I've never been able to answer.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Below is a list of things that people do believe in:
Unicorns
Herculese
The unrivaled greatness of the Oilers

Congrats Shantzy, for being the first poster to include an Oilers dig in a mostly theoligical thread....you get the win =

I always deal with these things on a personal level, although I have found myself agreeing with the Captain on alot of this issue.

Creationism wise, my attitude is one of lethargy. I honestly dont care who is right. I believe that if I woke up one morning and the front page of the Sun said "Scientists Right About Creation" the net effect on my life would be absolutely zero.

Okay, I should qualify that, I would never wake up to the sun, because I dont subscribe to it, and if I did, and that was the headline, I'd likely be more inclined to believe in the opposite.

The net effect is the same though. I'm not going to weigh in on the existance thing, its a little too heavy for a hungover friday at work.

Locke.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

But it is something you rely on memory and reenforcement for.. you don't experience it 24/7 (ie you don't experience it when you are asleep), but you don't alter your beliefs based on that fact (nor should you). So you do exercise some selection. You remember your beliefs whenever you need to think about them, and those memories of what your beliefs are are subject to the same rules as other memories.

And what about those who wish to experience it, while they're typing, but do not? Their inner experience is just as valid as someone who does experience it.

How can an individual tell the difference between a real internal experience, and one that is generated by the mind? One that is generated by social expectations and pressures, choices and the mind's need to keep thing consistent? How can one tell the difference between a spiritual experience induced by manipulating the brain or the body (fasting for example), and a spiritual experience supposedly attributed to God in a similar manipulation of the body? These are honest questions for myself I have that I've never been able to answer.

Sure, I don't experience it 24/7 but I can try if I wish. My memory of this experience, doesn't rely on my beliefs, that would be far too complicated and even changeable, it relies on remembering a simple technique. I can even have arguments with other practioners of these techniques. My experience and beliefs isn't the same as what you or someone else may experience following the same practises, although there is a common bond and recognition. It's probably more a matter of interpretation or what each of us finds important.

I have no way of knowing what others experience while doing anything. I can't start judging, I only know what is happening to me and my wish to share.

How can I tell it's a real experience and not something concocted by the mind or outside influence, is another good question and something I pondered when I first got into this. I first had to accept some trust with the practioners and listened for a while to see if the people involved were honest, didn't have a hidden agenda, and weren't idiots, offering some mumbo jumbo I didn't really need. The results of what I do is very individual although I do enjoy others inspiration, which can come from anywhere, even this thread makes me fell good. Today, it comes down to, I like the experience, with few strings attached.

[Skyceman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Simple question for everyone.

What is the foundation for your belief, or disbelief, in God?

Like everyone else, I don’t have a simple answer but I’ll touch on part of my own personal journey and where it started.

In my mid-twenties, I had a major paradigm shift. I became convinced that life has natural laws or principles that govern it almost as though they are apart of the human condition. These principles are not unique to my faith nor any other faith. However, they are apart of most every major religion, enduring social philosophies and ethical systems including my own. I personally believe that these principles were designed and put into place by God.

As Teilhard De Chardin once said: “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.” That quote holds a lot of truth to me, as I don’t think we can truly fathom or comprehend a God – especially if he didn’t want us to be able to find him in the physical realm. He would be smart enough to design that fail-safe. This is only done via faith alone.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

(Rhetorical question) Anyone wonder why we tend to refer to God as a masculine figure?...He is this...He is that etc.