Actually I have heard of it, thats why I posted it =P

Jesus Christ dying on the cross is the answer. I have faith. I don't need to see his DNA to believe he exists. I hope he does, but that is what faith is all about. I am not making a blanket statement that God does or does not exist. You cannot possibly know that he does not.

Well, yes, I understand that proof can be subjective in the sense that you can have your own experience and know you really experienced it (although the experience may have been a hallucination), but someone else might be lying about their experience or you could even be hallucinating them telling you about it.  But I don't think that really applies to proving or disproving evolution.  And if you have actual evidence that you have free will, you should be able to explain it to other people; although they might not be able to use that evidence to support the notion that you have free will, they should (I think) be able to apply it to themselves to indicate that they have free will. 

I'll address the previous post in a separate response.

[edited to comply with you backing down from the "proof" claim]

The dragon is not a possibility, its just made it up.  If something is made up, it is logical to reject it.  It would be unreasonable for me, or anyone else, to think that the invisible dragon existed and make decisions based on the idea that the invisible dragon existed.

For conciousness, you are just assuming that you need something more.  Bacteria react to stimuli, worms react to stimuli, snails react to stimili, and humans react to stimili.  The only difference is complexity and free will has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Many animals that make decisions do not even have brains (starfish, clams, and worms) they just have a central nervous system that makes crude decisions, just like bacteria make crude decisions based on the chemical reactions of a few protiens.  Our central nervous system happens to be much more complex, which makes us considerably different but does not require a supernatural explanation.

Well sguy, since you 'hope', that means you still think it's possible he does not exist, so you are even more logical than a pure atheist in that sense. And it's kindof natural to hope for something we desire, and there's nothing wrong with that, and I think that may be what makes faith special, because it's not a 100% belief, but it's like an assumption mixed with desire mixed with hope. And hope isn't stupid and blind like belief (I guess that's where the term blind faith comes from?)

Remaining open and receptive is the best position. Though obviously if you'd personally received proof of god's existence then it'd be another story, you could actually fully believe without illusion(unless the proof 'was' an illusion, oh my).. but you wouldn't be able to prove to others if they hadn't experienced the proof for themselves... quite a dilemma but that's just the way it is. We must learn to stay open an receptive and not look down upon those who have reason to believe what they do.. as long as they themselves are understanding of their situation and that others can't understand the stem of the belief. Science does happen to fall out of this though, and that's a good thing, because we need an objective system of information, and theories.

 So basically, If I make up something you'll just out right reject it. What about if years later it just happens that what I made up is actually true? (proven by science of course) Then what would you do? If you'd retake it as true because of science, then why did you reject it in the first place? See where I'm going? You can't reject something just because you 'think' it's made up.. it might turn out not to be made up.  I do agree to a certain degree with being reasonable, but out of sake of logic, I just can't conform.

And how do you know that animals have free will or not? You don't. But what about you? Aren't you human? do you not think you have free will?

@Final

"[edited to comply with you backing down from the "proof" claim]"

Yes, for the free will & experience part (that it can't be action reaction), because It seems too complex to try and explain feelings when we don't experience the same things..   or did I change my position on something else?

So the difference is that you believe that God has acted in the physical universe while the invisible dragon has not?

We are both similar in that we need physical evidence to believe something.  The difference is what we accept as evidence.

Out of the sake of logic you do not reject the idea of an invisible dragon that I just made up?  If something is made up, with absolutely no reason behind the statement, it should always be rejected.  If it turns out to be true, then it is nothing more than chance.  If I tell you that a monster from Mars is going to destroy your house and that you should move away, a logical person would reject the statement and not use it in decision making.

Since you 'hope', that means you still think it's possible he does not exist, so you are even more logical than a pure atheist in that sense.

Thats not true, for obvious reasons.  I hope that the monster from Mars brings me a ton of gold, that does not make me more logical than someone who doesnt believe that a monster from Mars will bring people gold.

Wow, a lot of interesting views in this thread.

I'll go with Intelligent Design. My reasoning is simple; I believe in God and I also believe in physics/scientific findings. So rather than discount either religion or science, I opt to believe both in good faith and the good progress and findings of human kind over history.

I think the OP asked for location too?

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, United States.

"I hope that the monster from Mars brings me a ton of gold, that does not make me more logical than someone who doesnt believe that a monster from Mars will bring people gold."

You are correct in that statement. You don't understand. It would make you more logical than someone who believes absolutely that a monster would or wouldn't bring gold.

Just becaues I don't reject it, doesn't mean I adopt it. Of course I woudln't use it in decision making unless there was something to back it up. You seem to think in a very black&white way.