Could not have God, or any transendant being, revealed Him/itself to man?  That would certainly account for it.  As for man creating God to explain the unknown, I don't think it plausible for any person, who not having anything to suggest within nature such an answer, to come up with an incorporeal and divine being as an explanation.  I mean, who would have thought to themselves as they watched a thunderstorm "I'll bet there's a giant, transcendental divinity up there doing that".  No. He's first and only thoughts would have been "It's the clouds". 

I very much believe in God, but I couldn't get through your whole post. Sorry, its just too long. I like that you put some effort into it though.

I give you 8/10

+ You believe in God
+ Solid Effort
- Too long

I seriously doubt the OP wrote this himself.

Your beliefs are your business. Please keep them to yourself. Thank you.

Damnit, I told myself I wasn't going to say anything, but I hate the argument of having a "complex universe" as proof of god. Basically you're saying that since it's too hard for you to figure out in 5 minutes, there must be a god...

This is worse than when Kazadoom tried to convert the board. He's a nice guy now though...

i don't get why people are still arguing.....

100 year from now, agnostic/atheist will be the dominant "religion" of Europe, east asia, and america/canada.

i mean, just look at france. it's history is deeply rooted in catholicism. However, in various polls, around 33% view themselves as either agnostic/aethiest on average.

a 100 years ago, this would be an INSANE amount of agnostic/aethiest people to predict. Yet, it happened.

our generation and our children will be the last generations living in a majority-christian society in the West.

I find "The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God" to be the best argument for the existence of God. Check it out at http://www.carm.org/atheism/transcendental_outline.htm

What? Human kind for millenia have been attributing things they couldn't do themselves to divine beings. Every culture ever has had their own god(s) that had their own job(s). Far be it from me to prevent you from speaking for the rest of human kind though...

yeah, people attributed things they couldnt explain to gods. like the egyptians said the wind blows because of some invisible god. but now we understand it isnt god, but a natural occurance. we alll know that they were believing in nothing essentially. their gods never actually existed.

the newer religions then attributed things that at that point werent understood to god. not why the wind blows, but things like how the world was created and how life began. but as science discovers more and more, and evntually proves how these things actually occured (much has already been explained via evolution) then christianity just like all the other former religions will become nothing more than myth.

zucas is right, just because we cant explain something now, doesnt mean it was an act of god. it just means we dont fully understand it YET.

 A corollary proof would be that Sony believes that God has some grudge against the PSP and might wish to damage yours.

In order for God to be able to be disproved, one would first have to know what god is. By definition god exists above our level of comprehension, hence is impossible to disprove.
Anyone who actually makes an argument against God's existence can only do so based off of their own comprehension of what God is "supposed" to be, but all that does is prove that their comprehension of god is mistaken.

Why do I know God exists? The very fact that we ask ourselves what the purpose of life is, the very fact that we question existence and how the world works, the very fact that despite everything we have learned, we still do not understand everything, everything is evidence.

On top of this, the spontaneous moral standards are what I see as the most undeniable proof. Lying, Murder, Adultery, Stealing are all obstacles to forming a strong society, and yet these are also things that any individual would be able to benefit from if they had no moral standards to begin with.
If a lion sees another lion eating something, and he's hungry, then if he's big enough to take the other lion's food, he will. This would likely be the lion that all others would have to defer to, so why would he impose rules that would no longer allow him to do this?

The moral rules that are the fiber of society are made to protect the weak from the strong, yet nature dictates that the strong survive and the weak are culled. On top of this, morals are not part of instinct. They are purely learned behaviors. Any kid in the playground will attempt to take a toy from another kid if he has an interest in it, until he has been taught that is wrong to do.

So with this in mind, there HAS to have been some point at which man was taught these lessons, and it could not come from a natural force, as those rules are directly opposed to natural selection.

how can you say god is above our comprehension, and then say he exists?

if god exists, maybe he isnt above our comprehension....thats just your thoughts on the idea of god. why are you right about this??


as for the whole morality, that can be attributed to god. but it can also be attributed to evolution. the idea of group evolution, or an individual on its own stands less chance of survival and reproduction, than if they were in a group. therefore it is in their best interests to stay and help the group, so they dont get kicked out. (thats a quite simplified explanation.) therefore, altruistic/selfless traits can evolve in pack animals.

to say morality is opposite to natural selection just says to me you dont know enough about evolution to argue anything about evolution v god