MoonlitSunshine

Even more, if you can show that there exists and assumption A that is both true and not true, it completely screws logic. You can prove absolutely anything you want (by extension, you can show that everything is a contradiction). I almost shouted at a philosophy lecturer once as a result of a "proof" that he used involving this contradiction in terms...

I was raised without religion. I was never christened, never baptised. I have never taken any form of vow to any god, nor have I taken any form of communion. I have, however, spent a lot of time thinking about life, and the possibility of a Divine being.

There is no "proof" of God's existence (I'm going to assume at this point that someone has already mentioned "Ah, but proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing", since I'm fairly sure I saw HHG2TG referenced earlier...), that cannot also be shown to be accounted for by something else. Similarly, there is no empirical "proof" of an absence of God. There are some, such as Epicurius' argument, but they fall more under the realm of semantics than proof itself:

That said, there is Pascal's Wager, which argues that regardless of whether God exists or not, we're better off believing in him because of a mathematical analysis of the risks involved (there are a massive number of counter arguments to this, but I thought it would be interesting to show at least one "logical" argument for belief).

Given the absence of proof for or against, Neither side of the Theist/Atheist Debate can with any degree of certainty say that they are right. Except the Religious side, because their idea of certainty is different to others, but I'll get back to that. I will say at this point that this is why I get so very pissed off with people like Richard Dawkins. From what I can tell, he has no proof that God doesn't exist, and yet that doesn't stop him from preaching his book, his ideas in exactly the same way that he accuses the religious of. I remember hearing a debate on the radio a few years ago, where a reporter was debating with a fanatic atheist. He was arguing that Science can be used to prove everything in the universe. There is nothing that Science cannot show, and thus God does not exist. When the reporter asked him about the things that science had not proven yet, he replied "Well, I believe that in the future Science will provide us with the answers to these questions" to which she said "You Believe? I'm sorry, i hadn't realised we were onto the subject of Faith." It was such a fantastic put down that I laughed out loud, as did most of the audience!

The problem I have with religion is largely based around the idea of Organised Religion, and the animosity that is not only allowed, but encouraged between them. There is this obsession with showing the other side that they are all wrong, that our god(s) is/are the one/only True God(s), and that if you don't believe you'll go to hell/whatever. You are questioning my belief? But we have been told by God himself! What, you say I have never had a vision of my own? But we have this Book that contains the scriptures of those that did! What, you have a Book as well? But ours is the True Book! Who Told us? Why, the people who... wrote... it.

Every Religion is, at the bottom of it all, based upon the writings of one person or a group of people, the vast majority of them having died a very long time ago. Interestingly enough, the oldest known religions in the world are without fail polytheistic: Judaism was the first known religion to have only one God, is there a chance that Moses thought "fuck it, this pantheon stuff's ridiculous, let's just go with the one." Or maybe "God", greedy for more power, rebelled from the Pantheon. Choosing Moses as his champion, and freeing the jews, knowing that they would forever be in his debt? Perhaps that is why all monotheistic religions are so adamant about punishing the heretic, because they know that the more people believe in other gods, the more powerful those other gods are? Just because noone thought of it till now (unlikely), doesn't make it any less valid an opinion. Believe what you want to believe, if it makes you feel better, but don't go telling someone else that they're wrong as a result.

I've tried believing in God, but regardless of proof, I do at least require an argument or some validity. "Just because" just doesn't hack it as a reason for me. Do we need the idea of a reward at the end of life in order to be good? Are we that evil inherently that we need a diving being of infinite power to watch over us? If so, why on earth did This God make us so? It makes no sense. Sure, you can say he moves in mysterious ways, but so does Osama Bin Laden, and I'm not about to worship him, thanks. I have definitely accepted the possibility that he might exist, but that probability could be anything from 0 to 1 from my perspective.

There is one thing that bugs me, and that's how life began. there are some Scientific Theories that I have to read up on further, but right now, I have yet to come across a proper scientific reason for how life started. Life isn't an element, it's not something we seem to be able to isolate and say "there, that's what the life bit is made of" Similarly, we don't seem to be able to create life without replication from already living organisms. If ever there is an argument for the existence of at least a Creator, not necessarily of the universe, but of life, then this is it. Of course, where did this Creator come from, the same questions still remain.

At the end of the day, when you have eliminated all probable causes, the remainder, however improbable...

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent