NOTE: This ranting was originally posted in some forum somewhere. It was designed for a very odd mix of pro/anti-religious people, and has been only slightly modified for this posting. That said, if it seems a little rambling at times, take it with a grain of salt.

At the risk of pissing off both athiets and Christians, I think there are sound logical reasons for the belief in God. According to science all matter in the universe today was once the size of a beach ball. It exploded outward. It went way far out there and then (rubberbandishly) gravity pulled it all back in. (I know it's over simplified, but lots of people DON'T know ANY physics, and I'm not really interested in teaching them. They have no idea what f=ma means, and don't believe they ever could. They think it's something only physicists can know. I'm not knocking them; I'm just telling you why I don't go into the BB in more detail.) This seems to be fairly logical conclusion to arive at to me (after having seen the data that is presented.)

Now, where does that matter come from? What is the origin of the universe? God? Perhaps. Most Christians believe he created everything ex-nihlo (out of nothing). most science believes it just happened to happen. Although on the whole science is more concerned with where matter is going than where it came from. It seems highly probably that matter is here, so let's go from there. Is it possible for science to ever be wrong? Of course. What about flogistan? A long time ago scientists believed that there was this stuff called flogistan that burned in certain objects. The more flamible an object, the more flogistan it had. This has more or less be proven false through modern science. :) (Then again, there is still a flat-earth society, so...) They couldn't see flogistan, they had to deduce it from what was happening.

Since we can't see the big bang, we must deduce it from what we see around us. I'm not suggesting the big bang is wrong, I'm simply setting up a scenareo that is possible. Now let's examine mankind. I see the horrors of what one man (or country) can do to another, and wonder, what makes people so radically different? Well, if everyone TRUELY had the same set of morals and ethics, there would be peace and order. Can this ever be? No. Why? Because morals and ethics are SUBJECTIVE. I can't think of a better reason. Now, what is God? Beats me. The way I read my bible and study it, it seems to me that there is nothing in there that contradits the big bang theory. (If you are going to flame that sentence, please quote the next few as well.) Genesis is written in a lovely poetic form. I don't think it is a factual acount of life. It is, of course, possible that it might be both poetic and factual, but - despite what some fundamentalist grumblers might say - I don't have to believe in a literal 7 day creation to be a Christian.

I believe we have a mind for a reason*. If we can create a nanochip that can filter all DNA that is not pure out an embryo, or clean all disease from the blood stream, then my children will never be sick. Through modern technology, humanity evolves again. I think there needs to be a line drawn, but that seems unlikely, so the argument is moot anyway. But answer this: if your kid get's sick, would you take him to the doctor? If the doctor told you he needed surgery or he would die, would you allow it? If you had the oppertunity to prevent him from getting sick in the first place would you do it? Not too long ago, this wasn't even an option, but thanks to sceince, we are on the verge of that right now. How can anyone accept the bennifets of science, then claim with a strait face that it is of the devil?!?

Taking this back to the orignal question of logical proof for God, we must begin to examin the deffinition of logic. If there was undisputable proof, then there would be no reason for faith, it would be fact. Likewise, if there was no evidence at all that a higher being existed, how could so many people believe it? Then what is this evidence? Can we describe this evidence with science? I personally feel something deep inside me that points to a higher awareness then my own. Curiously, many other people have this same feeling. But you can't base your entire life on a feeling, can you? My choice of lifestyle has a bit more to do with where I want to be at the end of my life. More on that later. For now, let's explore the question of the nature of God (supposing he exists) and what kind of evidence there could be.

To understand all of the nature of God, one would have to exist in all the demnsions of God. It is a widely held belief that God exists outside of time, and can therefore see all that has and will happen. So, can we prove God with science? Well, can we prove cubes with only point mathmatics? I think we can describe, but never prove. Mathmatically speaking, this is called a projection. Imaging shadow puppets. They exist as two deminsional objects that resemble a bird, but in reality they only represent the outline of a hand. How could a person that lived as a two deminsional object understand all that a hand is, if the only evidence it exists is the shadow puppet? No matter how much evidence existed, the people of the two deminsional world would NEVER be able to grasp even the most basic concepts of a hand.

Can I prove God? Of course not. We can't even "PROVE" we exist, let alone God. Cognito ergo sum. Cognito. (Literally: I think there fore I am. I think.) There is no way that we can know we are not simply thoughts in a much greater concisness. We believe we exist and therefore we can build upon that belief. There have been many philosophies of science throughout the years. Each of them was though to be correct, yet we seem to be able to expand on them all the time. We constantly find new evidence that causes us to rethink a theory. Do you think Lacitose was totally off his rocker? Of course not! His description of the constantly shifting paradigm of scientific discovery is firmly grounded in the basis of our current aristitilian reasoning system. Yet, we teach to children that science is FACT, when it is in fact the agreed upon method for obtaining information. Now, I understand that we can't teach children the philosophy of science. But most people seem to miss the fact that we don't UNDERSTAND the majority of the WHYs in science. For example: What is gravity? It's the force between two bodies. But what is that force? We have formulae that describe it as the inverse of the square of the distance, etc, etc. But why does this attraction exist? We know it has something to do with the pull of the electons, but there is a reason it is called the "THEORY" of gravity. Unless we know the why we CANNOT call a thing proven. So we must tackle the why of God if we are to prove him.

Ah, but how can we do this in our current demention? Enter faith. Is faith a cruch for a small mind? Of course not. No more then 9.8m/s^2 is a cruch for the small mindedness of science. Faith in the theory of gravity is simply believing that what has always happend with respect to gravity will continue to do so. Now, if we apply this reasoning to God, we see that faith is just believing that God will always relate to me as he has done in the past. I believe he speeks to me when I am at peace and meditate on his words and teachings. As the words he has spoken to me in these times are always in line with his teachings, I have faith that they will continue to be. Is faith wrong? Of course not! Such thinking is proposterous. YET we see that on this board. From people who believe that if they throw a rock up, it will come down. Now comes that hard part of Christianity. How can you aquire that faith. Once you have been a christian for a while, that faith grows within you. But WHY people believe in God, etc is totally personal. I believe in gravity because it is practical and seems to be sensible. I believe in God for the same reason. The first definition of faith in my dictionary is: confidence or trust in a person or thing. The second is: belief that is not based on proof. So it's confidence with out proof. Then what is proof? Again refering to the dictionary. proof: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. OK. What is cogency? cogency: the quality or state of being cogent. Great thanks Sam. cogent: having the power to compel or constrain. One more. compel: to drive or urge forcefully or irresistably.. So if we put all that together, we get: faith: confidence in a thing without irresistable [or indisputable] evidence. So you see, faith is not believing in nothing. It is most often beliving in something.

So, is there any reason to believe in God? There is for me. I choose to believe that the laws of physics that govern this reality where placed there by a higher power. When I ask, why does F=MA, why do you say to me, "It just does!" This is faith as much as when you ask some Christians, "Why do you believe in God", and they say, "I just do." All of us have seen the evidence around us and come to the conclusion that we believe to be logical. "AHA," you say, "what is this evidence you claim to see? That's what I don't understand!" Well, you see order to the universe and say, "these are the laws that govern it, we know them and they don't state: God exists". I look at the laws that govern it and say, "hmm. This much order from chance?" If I believe in chance, there is a one in (fill in as large a number as you want) chance that it would happen. The counter argument is generally: since it DID happen there must a one in one chance - (tat doesn't work, but it's a whole other debate.) If God exists and set the laws in motion, there is a one in one chance that the world would have this order. The question of proving God with science is moot, to me, as God doesn't exist within science. Can two deminsional laws prove the hand (see above example)? You could say science either exists because of chance or God. You take a pick as to which you will believe. Can either be PROVEN? I hope you no longer ask that question. The answer is NO.

So, without science, what do we do about this God thing. Do I want you to believe what I do? Perhaps, but I know that I can't 'prove' it to you. I simply try to live my life in such a way that when others see me they go, "Hey, why is that guy always at peace? Why is he so happy?" It IS possible for mankind to live without massive stress. It IS possible to love others and enjoy life. But this is decided at the individual level. Not on the social level. If it turns out that I have lived my life and there really is no God, I will at least know that I left the world better than I found it. If everyone did that, wouldn't overall happiness increase? Isn't that what life is all about anyway?

* Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all week. If you didn't get it, never mind. :)