Do you believe in God?

[MikeTheHockeyFan]

You all want to know something?

It's time Shem imparts some knowledge of his own and drops some hard facts into this debate.

Now, I'm not a religious type, no ties to any branch of any religion to be honest. That's not to say that I don't acknowledge the existence of a Meta Shema, just like you're acknowledging it by reading this.

The simple fact that there is a thread here, and even that you all have this idea of 'God' or some kind of force is proof enough of an existence.

Let's drop religion because that is to do with man, not 'god'. Religious books, Heaven, Hell, prophets and holy men; they are all man made concepts and nothing to do with the Meta Schema.

Here's where I'm coming from -
The idea of a Meta Schema (read: higher power) is innate within the subconscious all human beings. Why? Because we have this notion of 'God'. Where does it come from? Early man trying to explain why life existed? A hierarchy trying to control people by using 'God' as the bottom line in their religions? Remember, I'm leading away from religion here, it's a man made concept.

Take something mythical; a dragon, a unicorn. Someone's imagination produced these creatures. Take anything at all that you can possible think of, any wild thought or creation known. Where do these ideas come from?
Let me tell you. Our empirical senses. Touch, taste, sight, sound..........
What is a unicorn? It's a horse with a horn. A dragon? A crocodile with wings. You get the gist.

Anything we can imagine in our minds can be derived from our empirical senses. Except this notion of 'God'.

Without the Human race would there be anyone who could have this though of a 'God'? Before man, was there ever the thought of 'God' in early creatures on this Earth? Nope. It is an innate notion that comes from nothing empirical and resides within all concious minds.

Discover a tribe in the darkest heart of our planet that has not had any connection to the modern world and they'll have some idea about a 'God'.

Perhaps you know a thing or two about this, perhaps you've read 'The God delusion' by Prof. Dawkins. Good for you. Then you'll know all that Dawkins does is slander religion and shows how ridiculous religions can be in the name of 'God'. If anything, his work only adds credit to my argument that when we talk about 'God' we aren't really on the right track until we take man's corruption of the idea out of the equation.

Maybe you're a clever type who has read scriptures on religion and belief, maybe you think you're argument is valid because you've studied psychology or you can meditate and become one with the world. That's nothing to do with 'God' the way I book it. There are many factors involved here, mainly Meta Physics and Philosophy but any relation to religion or spirituality is purely a man made connection.

Do I believe in the existence of a 'God'? Why, of course, and so do you if you have posted in this thread, read this thread or ever read the title. By acknowledging the topic, either for or against believing, you are in fact acknowledging that a 'God' exists.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT, BZZZZZZZZZZT, incoming Philosophy major. Clear the decks. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT, BZZZZZZZZZZT, incoming Philosophy major. Clear the decks.

 

[homeforsummer]

Anything we can imagine in our minds can be derived from our empirical senses. Except this notion of 'God'.

Without the Human race would there be anyone who could have this though of a 'God'? Before man, was there ever the thought of 'God' in early creatures on this Earth? Nope. It is an innate notion that comes from nothing empirical and resides within all concious minds.

I'd disagree. Had I not been brought up at a Catholic school, the concept of God would be meaningless to me.

Imagine we were starting from scratch. No churches or other places of worship, no passed-down knowledge of God. The bible still exists, but it's just sitting in the book shop on the "fiction" shelf alongside everything else.

Would all of us have this innate knowledge of God in our minds then? I doubt it. Some people might have, people who wish to feel part of something bigger, but the world would still trundle happily onwards with scientists discovering how things actually happen.

The only reason we're able to have a debate about the existence of God today is because generations of people have continued telling the stories. If 1500 years ago people had decided that they didn't really need religion/God it certainly wouldn't exist in its current form today, whereas scientific discovery would have carried on regardless.

I'm not going to say you're wrong about this but scientific fact is only fact until someone comes along and sets new facts making the old facts wrong.

Once the earth was flat. Fact. Clever chap does some study and finds it isn't, how bizarre!

Mercury was once a cure for sickness. Fact. Another clever chap does some research and points out that it is, in fact, highly toxic.

Evidence for the existence of a potato in my pocket is; that it's there. But how do you know there's a potato in my pocket? Evidence isn't all it's cracked up to be in science or in my pocket.

Fact is only the current acceptance of an idea with evidence for/ previously theory which is yet to be disproved. Welcome to science 101.

Caveat - scientific evidence must be repeatable before it becomes fact.

Someone could keep coming to you and proving that potato is in your pocket. If it changed then it changed, but if it didn't then it becomes scientific fact through repeatability. That's why we can trust science, because if one bloke says something and another disagrees, then people keep studying it until it becomes consensus.

You have your wording wrong. Scientific theory can be refuted. Scientific fact can't. Nobody has reclassified our planet as not being an oblate spheroid yet, and they won't because everyone now knows that it's the shape it is. It's no longer a theory, so the evidence we have becomes fact.

This makes evidence infinitesimally more reliable than blind faith.

 

[DK]

You just care about your parties, drugs, alcohol, pork meat ,etc, etc....

Drugs? That's a pretty vague statement. You could mean Charlie Sheen's favourite powder, you could mean nasal spray or you could mean caffeine. As for pork meat...you do realise that you're condemning bacon, right? No one is allowed to question the greatness of bacon!

 

[Villain]

No certanly not, but i dont waste my time on those things, because they havent opened their eyes yet.

What does it take to "open my eyes" - what have you "seen" that I cannot? Is he in the room with you right now?

 

[TT3AZ]

Drugs? That's a pretty vague statement. You could mean Charlie Sheen's favourite powder, you could mean nasal spray or you could mean caffeine. As for pork meat...you do realise that you're condemning bacon, right? No one is allowed to question the greatness of bacon!

I mean drugs like green stuff, alcohol, cigarettes etc. Pork, was just an example. And by the way, bacon in the way you eat in in US is unhealthy....in sweden its much more healthy.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I mean drugs like green stuff, alcohol, cigarettes etc. Pork, was just an example. And by the way, bacon in the way you eat in in US is unhealthy....in sweden its much more healthy.

In what way is our bacon healthier than US bacon? There's plenty of E250 in ours.

 

[Dotini]

In what way is our bacon healthier than US bacon? There's plenty of E250 in ours.

This conversation, while very intelligent and interesting, has wandered far afield from the topic.

By the way, our super moderator Famine has distinct views on pork and bacon, so mind what you say!

Back on the topic, I'm submitting this term, "reductionism" into the debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism
Shem and others of the more thoughtful sort will be better "armed and dangerous" by invoking this concept, whether pro or con!

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Encyclopedia]

This conversation, while very intelligent and interesting, has wandered far afield from the topic.

I agree. That said, I think we need a dedicated bacon thread. 👍

 

[W3H5]

I'd disagree. Had I not been brought up at a Catholic school, the concept of God would be meaningless to me.

But the notion is there all the same be it meaningless or not. Can you imagine anything that is self creating using your empirical senses? Not really possible in a human mind.

Caveat - scientific evidence must be repeatable before it becomes fact.
This makes evidence infinitesimally more reliable than blind faith.

Yes, evidence is more reliable than blind faith, but as much as I'm not a religious type, I'd say a holy book is still more credible than some theory; string or multi-verse perhaps?

I agree. That said, I think we need a dedicated bacon thread. 👍

Second that.

Isn't it written....

"Our awesome Lord came forth and declared - 'I have brought unto you a tasty pig which should be made into bacon, and it shall rid you of your hunger!' "?

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

How is a holy book more credible than a theory that has looked at every possibility?


what if.. jesus was just some guy in the far future who went back in time mind ****ed a bunch of people and made up some stuff of how he was some gods son.
and now where just living in a dimension of reality based off of that. and consequently all time travel in the future was made illegal because of that guy

 

[W3H5]

How is a holy book more credible than a theory that has looked at every possibility?


what if.. jesus was just some guy in the far future who went back in time mind ****ed a bunch of people and made up some stuff of how he was some gods son.
and now where just living in a dimension of reality based off of that. and consequently all time travel in the future was made illegal because of that guy

You're completely missing the point.

Have you read string or multi-verse theory? They are as far fetched a the belief in God. Once you get passed the maths involved which these theorys depend on they still take a lot of faith to actually believe them, as much say, as religion.

Point is, this thread is about God. Not religion although most people tie them quite closely.

Off topic, if time travel in the future was made illegal then that man you're calling Jesus woud not have been able to time travel because the future would have more impact on the past were time travel possible. This could get really long winded so I'm gonna leave it here.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

You're completely missing the point.

Have you read string or multi-verse theory? They are as far fetched a the belief in God. Once you get passed the maths involved which these theorys depend on they still take a lot of faith to actually believe them, as much say, as religion.

Point is, this thread is about God. Not religion although most people tie them quite closely.

Off topic, if time travel in the future was made illegal then that man you're calling Jesus woud not have been able to time travel because the future would have more impact on the past were time travel possible. This could get really long winded so I'm gonna leave it here.

Everythings possible in the year 3036

 

[niky]

Yes, evidence is more reliable than blind faith, but as much as I'm not a religious type, I'd say a holy book is still more credible than some theory; string or multi-verse perhaps?

Wild though it is, string theory and brane theory M-Theory (had to check for the proper name of this) don't actually contradict any observable evidence about our visible universe and can explain many things about it that are unaccountable for, otherwise.

Yes, it's sort of a black box problem... where we're describing the inside of a box we will never see... one that contains an ordinary, everyday object.

With "Holy Books", the authors have picked up the black box. They see that it is heavy. They proclaim that the black box is heavy because there is a great, rough-hewn piece of granite inside of it.

With science, we pick it up, see that it is heavy. We shake it, discover that whatever is inside rolls from side-to-side whenever you tilt the box. We listen to the sound of the rolling, to try to discover the texture. We shake the box more vigorously to see if the object will break.

We then model the shape, size, weight and hardness of the object inside based on the available data, and make predictions on what will happen in other situations based on a model derived from that. If our model does not predict what happens in a certain situation: We theorize there is an iron ball inside, thus box should be attracted to a magnet... but it isn't, then we must discard the model as incorrect.

It may seem a stretch to accept strings or branes. It was also a stretch to accept subatomic particles and quantum theory, but these have been verified in laboratory testing.

Eventually, they'll bring string theory to the point where it's consistent with what else we know about the Universe. Then we'll be able test string theory and see if its predictions come true. If they do, then it'll be verified. If they don' t, back to the drawing board.

Or you could continue believing there's an irregular chunk of granite in the box, despite empirical proof that there is a spherical object rolling about in there...

 

[W3H5]

It may seem a stretch to accept strings or branes. It was also a stretch to accept subatomic particles and quantum theory, but these have been verified in laboratory testing.

Eventually, they'll bring string theory to the point where it's consistent with what else we know about the Universe. Then we'll be able test string theory and see if its predictions come true. If they do, then it'll be verified. If they don' t, back to the drawing board.

I see the logic here and it is a very necessary point to bring up.

The belief needed for 'God' or string is a far stretch either way you look at it. Consider; if an atom was the size of the universe then a string would be the size of an atom. I can, in my mind, find it much eaiser to justify a 'God' than to have faith in a string. 10 dimentions.......oh, wait, that doesn't fit the maths, let's make it 11.

Somewhere along the line this thread was always going to desend into a metaphysical debate because so far it's been about religion and, as I've said, religion has nothing to do with 'God' apart from it's use of 'God' in it's systems.

 

[Grand Prix]

How did it get inside the box? Could be that the box was made after the contents were made. That would be pretty spooky if true.

 

[niky]

I see the logic here and it is a very necessary point to bring up.

The belief needed for 'God' or string is a far stretch either way you look at it. Consider; if an atom was the size of the universe then a string would be the size of an atom. I can, in my mind, find it much eaiser to justify a 'God' than to have faith in a string. 10 dimentions.......oh, wait, that doesn't fit the maths, let's make it 11.

Somewhere along the line this thread was always going to desend into a metaphysical debate because so far it's been about religion and, as I've said, religion has nothing to do with 'God' apart from it's use of 'God' in it's systems.

The belief for a God requires you to invent something that we can not observe, test for, or even model.

A string is something we can mathematically model that either proves true or false. It's an evolving theory, because yes, there are problems with it. I can hardly imagine it, much less model it in my head. But if it works out to be accurate, no matter how incomprehensible, then who am I to doubt that it exists? In the end, it could be completely false... though more likely it will turn out to be only a small aspect of the truth... much as Newtonian "Laws" and General Relativity are... applicable only under special conditions.

But still testable. The only question now is how to test for it. Arguments against it are of the same order as arguments against Evolution: "It's too complicated to be true." Which is an easy cop-out. If you break the theory down, each aspect can be understood on its own. But it'll still be impossible for people like us to model or visualize it without gross oversimplification.

Then again... you can say the same of almost anything we take for granted nowadays... atoms, subatomic particles, genetic drift, Einsteinian time dilation... we can accept all of these things as existing, because we see examples of how these occur and impact our daily lives... but when these discoveries were new, we couldn't.

---

This is completely different from the concept of "God", which covers something that is not only incomprehensible... but which promises to be incomprehensibly incomprehensible and completely untestable. The argument against "God" is, as it always was: "It's completely unprovable, either way."

 

[boomee]

nope we dont have to invent God he invented us everyone is entitled to there opinion but the Truth is there is a God there is a Jesus and He is coming back

 

[homeforsummer]

But the notion is there all the same be it meaningless or not. Can you imagine anything that is self creating using your empirical senses? Not really possible in a human mind.

I don't need to imagine anything self-creating because we have scientific method to explain how stuff appears and disappears.

Yes, evidence is more reliable than blind faith, but as much as I'm not a religious type, I'd say a holy book is still more credible than some theory; string or multi-verse perhaps?

Really? A combination of books written two millenium ago, at least half a century after Jesus was even alive, and translated and re-interpreted dozens of times is more credible than scientific theory?

And that's the New Testament too, which is significantly more likely to be based in at least some form of fact than the Old Testament, which is essentially an ancient storybook.

The point you're missing about things like string theory is that they're only a theory up until now. Nobody is claiming they're definitely what's happened (unlike the Bible), they're just theories that people are exploring. If they turn out not to be true, then we move onto the next thing.

Science isn't scared to be wrong. People who worship God are.

If someone proved that string theory didn't exist nobody would bat an eyelid. If someone managed to categorically prove that God didn't exist, all hell would break loose, if you excuse the pun.

nope we dont have to invent God he invented us everyone is entitled to there opinion but the Truth is there is a God there is a Jesus and He is coming back

And if he doesn't? What then?

 

[Hun200kmh]

And if he doesn't? What then?

Simple. Absolute nothingness.

 

[Encyclopedia]

nope we dont have to invent God he invented us everyone is entitled to there opinion but the Truth is there is a God there is a Jesus and He is coming back

Proof?

 

[Tic Tach]

Nope, we dont have to invent God

Unfortunately the evidence doesn't bear that out. Looking back, man is, and always has been a maker of gods.

...the truth is there is a God there is a Jesus and He is coming back

Oh my, I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that old yarn.

Unfortunately boomee, every new testament writer who mentioned that nonsense said something like:

- "It's going to happen soon"

- "This is the last hour"

- "This generation will not pass away....."

Hey I got news for ya - if you've looked at the calendar lately it's been 1900 YEARS since then!

 

[barryl85]

nope we dont have to invent God he invented us

???

Someone clearly invented god in a fairy tale story since there is no proof of his existence not even slightly.

No he didnt invent us, thats my opinion, evolution is the key here, there is at least proof of evolution.

everyone is entitled to there opinion but the Truth is there is a God there is a Jesus and He is coming back

Yeah i'd like proof of that - 'Truth is' there is no proof - when someone cannot prove their innocence in a court of law they are given sentence/punishment and yet the amount of people who believe in god without even a single bit of proof is crazy.

We cant even predict earthquakes but someones really gonna tell me that it is proven fact that there is a god? wow

 

[TT3AZ]

Funny part is , Jesus never claimed to be son of god or god, he also said there would be others after him.....muhammed. Muslims follow both jesus and muhammed, but christians doesnt follow muhammed....do i have to say more?

 

[Hun200kmh]

A lot more. But you can always fall back to the "prove it or it's a lie" line so you should be safe if "a lot more" is too much for you.

 

[TT3AZ]

I think its hard to prove spiritual things with science. Remember science is man made to explan certain things, but it cant explain everything though. Science also changes by time, and who knows what will happen in future. God exist yes, because he made all this happenings. Its only we humans who use science to explain certain things GOD has made. And as Jesús said "the one who is free from sin, throw the first stone". The thing is , no one is perfect, and hence no one throw the stone. But i do not believe you inheritage sins from the past, and Jesus did not die for humans sins, why would he?

To understand gods existence, you got to think deeper, and hence, the majority of people doesnt understand how this works, and they never will, because the did not accept the prophets message thru out the time. I believe that the bible is corrupted, and many of the holy scriptures.

Does god exist? Well, can you see the wind? No you cant, but you can feel it. Just because you cant see or prove anything, doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. Can you see bacterias and viruses with your eye? NO, you cant, but with microscope you can. Hence, religion is the tool to see and feel the divine, that cant be seen with a untrained (closed) eye. Can it be any more simple? This is what Jesús said, he was the proof that god exited, but people was like you guys back in the days as well, you didnt accept the divine....

Besides, i do believe Jesús was puertorican...

 

[TT3AZ]

nope we dont have to invent God he invented us everyone is entitled to there opinion but the Truth is there is a God there is a Jesus and He is coming back

Are you sure? If im not wrong, god did send muhammed, but not everyone accepted him as prophet, how do you explain that? Second, jesus did tell that people would come after him. If you look up, you will see that its only a myth that jesus was gods son, hence he was gods messenger, just like moses, noah, abraham etc.

Jesus will never come to earth, if he would, he would have come long time ago. And, second, why will he come? The majority didnt listen do jesus final message, right? What makes you think people will listen now? Humankind have had manny messengers, but people never listened. 2000 years after you still dont get it...

And no, i do not believe US is gods promised land, because of your large military. As i see it, everything is equal in gods eyes, countries are just man made drawings on a paper.

 

[Villain]

Jesus never claimed to be son of god or god...

Debatable point, that is - 1, 2, 3, and saving the best for last: passage number 4.

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”

Don't make claims off of what others tell you; it's always better to look things up for yourself. Also, double-posting is bad for your health.

 

[TT3AZ]

Debatable point, that is - 1, 2, 3, and saving the best for last: passage number 4.



Don't make claims off of what others tell you; it's always better to look things up for yourself. Also, double-posting is bad for your health.

If you read what i wrote in previous posts, i wrote that i consider bible to be corrupted and hence those sources that streinghtens the credability of the bible is according to be also false. There are other sources as well proving the opposite. I also consider, the christianity in middle east and those places differs very much from our western thoughts. There are many sects in christianity as well...

The question is, how people can tust a book that is written by humans, no human is perfect, so how can a humans work be perfect and divine? It is also widely known that bible isnt accurate, its one of the most reedited and twisted holy books there are. I do think politicians in the ancient times did corrupt the bible.

Second, those things you posted, you can interpret that in different way. Yes, you can come to the father (god) thru jesus, in that matter, that if you follow jesus message, you come to heaven and get spiritual contact with god. God was jesus spiritual father, not physical. The term spiritual father, when talking about god isnt something new, and is widely used. And who decides what interpratations of bible is correct?

 

[dylansan]

I think its hard to prove spiritual things with science. Remember science is man made to explan certain things, but it cant explain everything though.

Prove it.

Science also changes by time, and who knows what will happen in future. God exist yes, because he made all this happenings.

"God made all this happenings" (whatever that means) is not evidence that God exists. You can't prove all this happenings was made by God, all you know is that it exists.

Its only we humans who use science to explain certain things GOD has made.

Correction. It is we humans who use science to explain certain things that EXIST.

And as Jesús said "the one who is free from sin, throw the first stone". The thing is , no one is perfect, and hence no one throw the stone. But i do not believe you inheritage sins from the past, and Jesus did not die for humans sins, why would he?

Are you trying to make any kind of point here? I really don't know what you mean by this. No one is perfect? We already knew that.

To understand gods existence, you got to think deeper, and hence, the majority of people doesnt understand how this works, and they never will, because the did not accept the prophets message thru out the time. I believe that the bible is corrupted, and many of the holy scriptures.

But I argue that to understand that God may not exist you have to think deeper, hence why you don't understand how this works, and maybe never will (but I still try), because you accept the prophets' message throughout time without any evidence or proof. I agree that the Bible is corrupted, and many of the holy scriptures.

Does god exist? Well, can you see the wind? No you cant, but you can feel it. Just because you cant see or prove anything, doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. Can you see bacterias and viruses with your eye? NO, you cant, but with microscope you can.

Yes, I can feel it the wind. Physically. As in, evidence that it's there. Yes you can see the Bacteria, with the help of the microscope magnifying the images so your eye can sense them. There is no way to physically sense or measure the existence of God through taste, smell, sound, touch, sight, or any physical tools like barometers, microscopes, tape measures, x-rays, MRIs, telescopes, colonoscopies, calorimeters, scales, thermal goggles, etc, etc, etc.

Hence, religion is the tool to see and feel the divine, that cant be seen with a untrained (closed) eye.

Religion is not a tool for anything concerning reality. It requires faith, not physical sensation or measurement. Religion is a person or a book telling you what is true. Only if you KNOW neither of those things can be wrong can you accept it as definitely true. If not, you either don't believe them or you believe on faith, which means absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Can it be any more simple? This is what Jesús said.

Wait, when did he say that? Why do you keep quoting Jesus on things he's never been attributed as saying? But you're right about it being simple. The simple fact is you expect us to believe what you say for no other reason than you said it, and then you say our eyes are closed when we don't. The simple fact is that your eyes are closed.

He was the proof that god exited

IF he existed, and did all the things said about him, it may have been enough proof for the people back then. But Jesus isn't in my living room, doing all those things for me, so why should I believe he can?

but people was like you guys back in the days as well, you didnt accept the divine....

Why should anyone accept the divine without EVIDENCE? You may say, "because it's true". Well, how are we supposed to know that without EVIDENCE. You seem to keep assuming that God's existence is obviously true, and that should be enough evidence for everyone else. But obviously God's existence is not obvious, or everyone would agree with you.

Besides, i do believe Jesús was puertorican...

I will assume this is sarcasm. Please tell me it's sarcasm.


And you never answered my question. Do you believe in unicorns?

 

[TT3AZ]

Prove it."God made all this happenings" (whatever that means) is not evidence that God exists. You can't prove all this happenings was made by God, all you know is that it exists.Correction. It is we humans who use science to explain certain things that EXIST.Are you trying to make any kind of point here? I really don't know what you mean by this. No one is perfect? We already knew that.But I argue that to understand that God may not exist you have to think deeper, hence why you don't understand how this works, and maybe never will (but I still try), because you accept the prophets' message throughout time without any evidence or proof. I agree that the Bible is corrupted, and many of the holy scriptures.Yes, I can feel it the wind. Physically. As in, evidence that it's there. Yes you can see the Bacteria, with the help of the microscope magnifying the images so your eye can sense them. There is no way to physically sense or measure the existence of God through taste, smell, sound, touch, sight, or any physical tools like barometers, microscopes, tape measures, x-rays, MRIs, telescopes, colonoscopies, calorimeters, scales, thermal goggles, etc, etc, etc.Religion is not a tool for anything concerning reality. It requires faith, not physical sensation or measurement. Religion is a person or a book telling you what is true. Only if you KNOW neither of those things can be wrong can you accept it as definitely true. If not, you either don't believe them or you believe on faith, which means absolutely no evidence whatsoever.Wait, when did he say that? Why do you keep quoting Jesus on things he's never been attributed as saying? But you're right about it being simple. The simple fact is you expect us to believe what you say for no other reason than you said it, and then you say our eyes are closed when we don't. The simple fact is that your eyes are closed.IF he existed, and did all the things said about him, it may have been enough proof for the people back then. But Jesus isn't in my living room, doing all those things for me, so why should I believe he can?Why should anyone accept the divine without EVIDENCE? You may say, "because it's true". Well, how are we supposed to know that without EVIDENCE. You seem to keep assuming that God's existence is obviously true, and that should be enough evidence for everyone else. But obviously God's existence is not obvious, or everyone would agree with you.
I will assume this is sarcasm. Please tell me it's sarcasm.


And you never answered my question. Do you believe in unicorns?

Well, i do believe god exist, but its hard for me to explain, certain feeling is hard to express. Its hard to describe the divine with few words, i dont even think a human can describe gods diviness. And yes i do believe in unicorn, in that manner that you still can believe without evidence that people like you would accept. I have evidence of gods existence, but the question is, do you have evidence that god doesnt exist?

I do also believe than it wasnt meant for all to know about god, simply, theres not enough room in the heaven and hell for everybody. People that has lost their believe in god are lost, and they will feel it one day, i am sure. Or they will never feel it, because they have never feelt the divine (poor them). Living a life without knowing about the divine, is like eating a pizza without cheese or sausage...

Jesus could might as well be latino, or any other race, we was certanly not a white anglosax....eating pork meat.