"I would like to see your evidence."

Past something like God's driver's license, I don't think there IS evidence you'd accept.

Which, IMO, isn't rational.

Please not assume and please do not reduce this debate to mere semantics again. Rationality is rationality and just because you're convinced something is true doesn't mean it's on a rational basis. Faith by its very nature connotes irrationality (full belief in something without evidence or any justifiable a-priori [or even a-posteriori] correspondence).

How is there "no evidence" for the existance of a Creator?

Do you honestly think I'd waste my time and energy "believing" in something for which there was no rational reason to accept?

All I've ever seen is the suggestion that the mechanisms are somehow their own cause...

Where do you think we came from? (and no, I'm not talking about the biological evoluion of our physical bodies.)

"Just because" does NOT pass muster with me.. that's all I'm saying.

At least as an agnostic, I cover all possibilities.

And besides, I think people would lose faith, by definition, if they knew for sure if there was or wasn't a God.

So, in some ways I think it is better if we don't know for sure since their faith helps many people get through their lives.

It's a very presumptuous position to assume that there is real objective evidence for a creator. You still have yet to make such evidence visible.

No one, at least me, has ever suggested that. Quite the contrary actually. I've stated that no phenomena exists uncaused (that would suggest inherently existing). I've stated directly opposite to what you are suggesting. I've said countless times that phenomena exist but they're dependent-arising. They're dependent upon countless conditions and causes.

Evolution, even does not suggest that. The very essence of evolution suggests everything is dependent-arising (species exist from their environmental and material causes and conditions and manifest over eons of trial and error [thus, quite opposite to 'random']).

It depends on what you mean by "we", but if you're talking about the origination of reality and existence; what I think about this ontological question is irrelevant because of the limitations of my (and humanity's) knowledge derived from subjective experience. Even the true answer (if there is one) is also irrelevant to our practical lives.

To make the presumptuous position that somehow I am ordained with the objective knowledge of ultimate truth is one of the most arrogant, and irrational positions taken by humanity. The God-concept is such an irrational position because it claims to know the unknowable.

And does the God-concept really solve this problem? When I ask you where God came from (because obviously your philosophy is that reality exists so it must have an ultimate cause, and therefore if god exists he too must have a cause), you give me the answer 'just because'.

They don't need to be, I'm just saying they often are.

I think there can be rational elements to it for some people, certainly. But it can't be entirely rational or logical. Some portion has to be taken on faith, and faith itself is not rational, it's emotional. (That's not to say it's better or worse, but at the very least, different.)

Oh, I agree. Love has an irrational component too.

No offense was intended to people of any faith.

I'm not calling one mode superior to the other, just saying that it's not possible to use a 100%-rational process in discussing a topic like faith. Or love for that matter.

That's a good point. I guess I hadn't yet considered it. But now that you bring it up, I see the value in it.


If God was immediately present... easily detected by all, there would be no more wonder or mystery to it. It might even get (gasp) boring...LOL.

Kat.. God, simply by being God would need no cause.

The buck has to stop somewhere.

It's really not any more complicated than that, IMO.

"No one, at least me, has ever suggested that. Quite the contrary actually. I've stated that no phenomena exists uncaused (that would suggest inherently existing). I've stated directly opposite to what you are suggesting. I've said countless times that phenomena exist but they're dependent-arising. They're dependent upon countless conditions and causes."

Well, since there can't be an endless regression of causes... I think you just answered your own question.


"Evolution, even does not suggest that. The very essence of evolution suggests everything is dependent-arising (species exist from their environmental and material causes and conditions and manifest over eons of trial and error [thus, quite opposite to 'random'])."

Yep. Again, there ya go.

Not to mention how overwhelmed God would be.

You know, with questions, demands, wishes, accusations...and such.

He wouldn't get a moment of peace!