How many believe in God

[joecooool]

im glad you feel like the universe is intelligent, or god is all, or reality exists inside your consciousness, but there is no evidence to support any of those claims about objective reality and therefore they are either your guesses, or your subjective points of view.

well as long as we are entertaining guesses and or subjective points of view how about this one: we are all just rats in a maze.

what is reality?
a maze

what is life
trying to get through the maze

what is science
measuring the maze

what is religion
guessing at why the maze is here

what are video games?
playing a simulation of the maze within the maze

what is free will
choosing which path you take within the maze

what is determinism
only having one path in the maze

who am i?
the software guidance system that directs my biological hardware unit through the maze

what is happiness?
finding some cheese in the maze



haha, just as much proof for my guesses and subjective points of view as there is for yours.
its a good thing we have science which gives us objective knowledge of the one objective reality. so we can put down guesses and subjective points of view and all agree on something. that we are not rats in a maze, that we are humans, and that the universe is not intelligent or god, thats its matter and natural laws.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by joecooool

that we are humans

Well that's what we're brainwashed to believe our entire lives.

Personally I don't put much stock in it.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by joecooool

what is reality?
a maze

what is life
trying to get through the maze

Exactly! You believe you are in a maze. You are hooked into your view of reality.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Cantando

There is consciousness.
It is not physical.

Your idea of consciousness is of a non-physical entity, but that's not the only perspective. Your questions can be answered from a different perspective than yours, leading to very different conclusions than the ones you posed.

Originally Posted by Cantando

If everyone meditated on this, they would come to realize this truth.

Not necessarily. I've meditated on it and have reached a different conclusion. Your 'truth' is not mine.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Your idea of consciousness is of a non-physical entity, but that's not the only perspective.

I don't think consciousness is an entity as such, more like a state, or process, of being aware. As soon as I start to examine my state of being aware, I start creating mirrors within mirrors in an attempt to capture it, but that is futile.
Once you try to define, delineate or categorize it, you lose it.
What conclusion did you come to during meditation?

[joecooool]

There's no such thing as your truth, and my truth. Truth is truth, if it's your or my then its not truth its a subjective point of view.

if its something we can all observe, from multiple perspectives, with our senses, and agree on, that stands up to tests, scrutiny and skepticism, etc... then its the truth.

if you define something as your truth or my truth then it is either just a subjective point of view, or a guess/hypothesis.

for example: one person thinks humans are divine, the other things humans are a virus. neither are true, both are subjective points of view.

or one person thinks life on this planet came from an asteroid, the other thinks it was chemical evolution those are alternate hypothesis's. either could be true, we are not sure at this time.

its this stupid idea of subjective reality that divides us into thinking we each have our own truth, that leads to wars. objective reality is the reality we live in and all share. it can unite us.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by joecooool

There's no such thing as your truth, and my truth. Truth is truth, if it's your or my then its not truth its a subjective point of view.

if its something we can all observe, from multiple perspectives, with our senses, and agree on, that stands up to tests, scrutiny and skepticism, etc... then its the truth.

Why should truth be restricted to what we can physically observe? If mankind, as a species, was blind, wouldn't your 'truth' be rather limited?
Your idea of truth seems to be 'an agreed upon reality' according to the prevalent historical context and culture in which you were raised, and the current perceptiveness society subscribes to, and the number of 'senses' we believe we have.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I don't think consciousness is an entity as such, more like a state, or process, of being aware.

Sorry, poor word choice on my part.

Originally Posted by Cantando

As soon as I start to examine my state of being aware, I start creating mirrors within mirrors in an attempt to capture it, but that is futile.
Once you try to define, delineate or categorize it, you lose it.
What conclusion did you come to during meditation?

Exactly. That consciousness is a process, and one which is both subject to our will, but also subject to the demands of our senses. It's comprised of both awareness (which can be directed) and a state of arousal (which is not within our direct control, though it can be influenced wilfully). And that it cannot be separated from the body, though it is possible to feel as if it can be. Deep meditative states cause sensory input to quieten and diffuse, but it has always been possible to direct my awareness to those inputs. So I have to accept that consciousness is part of my body (including the brain).

Originally Posted by joecooool

if its something we can all observe, from multiple perspectives, with our senses, and agree on, that stands up to tests, scrutiny and skepticism, etc... then its the truth.

You know there's no such thing as 100% certainty within science, right? I don't think truth is the appropriate term. It gives the impression of certainty and immutability.

[joecooool]

i did not say science = truth. i said empirical evidence = truth. science then explains that empirical evidence with logic. and logic is based on perceived reality as well. so science is the closest thing to the truth we have.

the only reason why science is not 100% truth is because our logical explanations are based on the amount of empirical evidence we have, which always grows, so then our logical explanation might change based on having more empirical evidence.

for example Newtonian gravity vs. Einsteins gravity. newtons theory of gravity got upgraded.

the reason i say evidence = truth is because all knowledge in our brains comes from our perception. so its paradoxical to use knowledge which comes from perception to doubt perception.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by joecooool

i did not say science = truth. i said empirical evidence = truth. science then explains that empirical evidence with logic. and logic is based on perceived reality as well. so science is the closest thing to the truth we have.

the only reason why science is not 100% truth is because our logical explanations are based on the amount of empirical evidence we have, which always grows, so then our logical explanation might change based on having more empirical evidence.

for example Newtonian gravity vs. Einsteins gravity. newtons theory of gravity got upgraded.

the reason i say evidence = truth is because all knowledge in our brains comes from our perception. so its paradoxical to use knowledge which comes from perception to doubt perception.

You have material reductionists on the one hand, who believe empiricism is the only way to go for knowledge acquisition, and then on the other, you have mystics, who claim the sensory apparatus can be transcended altogether.

Joe, just out of curiosity, what kind of "evidence" would it take to convince you that empirical observation was not the only means of acquiring accurate data regarding the presumably external world? And would that alter your views in regards to the delineation between subjective and objective?

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Sorry, poor word choice on my part.

Exactly. That consciousness is a process, and one which is both subject to our will, but also subject to the demands of our senses. It's comprised of both awareness (which can be directed) and a state of arousal (which is not within our direct control, though it can be influenced wilfully). And that it cannot be separated from the body, though it is possible to feel as if it can be. Deep meditative states cause sensory input to quieten and diffuse, but it has always been possible to direct my awareness to those inputs. So I have to accept that consciousness is part of my body (including the brain).

I understand what you are saying, but I keep returning to the question - why then, is there consciousness? I can accept that intelligence can evolve as a biological necessity, so why isn’t this universe without consciousness? Is it just a sheer fluke of nature, an accidental chemical interaction, which produced it?

If mankind didn’t exist, do you think there would still be consciousness (perhaps in animals and plants)?

What would need to be demonstrated for you to be convinced that consciousness is more than an individual phenomenon of the brain, which dies when the brain dies?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I understand what you are saying, but I keep returning to the question - why then, is there consciousness? I can accept that intelligence can evolve as a biological necessity, so why isn’t this universe without consciousness? Is it just a sheer fluke of nature, an accidental chemical interaction, which produced it?

It's a good question and one I'd like to find the answer to. What I've learnt so far seems to point towards consciousness as an evolutionary adaptation which allowed us to monitor and moderate our behaviour, to our advantage.

Originally Posted by Cantando

If mankind didn’t exist, do you think there would still be consciousness (perhaps in animals and plants)?

Absolutely. A few animals can be said to be conscious in certain ways. Even elephants have demonstrated a rudimentary form of self-awareness. Plants, no.

Originally Posted by Cantando

What would need to be demonstrated for you to be convinced that consciousness is more than an individual phenomenon of the brain, which dies when the brain dies?

Reliable, recurrent observations of events attributable only to a consciousness which is more than a phenomenon of the brain. Currently candidate events are unexplained or poorly explained (NDEs, etc.).

But then I think the issue is confused by the varied definitions of consciousness here. Perhaps the consciousness I'm referring to really is a cerebral epiphenomenon, while the consciousness you refer to also exists as something more. The latter requires a very different approach when studying it than the former, just like a God which is part of this universe would require a very different approach to understanding than one which transcends it.

[Barcs]

I know I'm a little late to respond, but I've been pretty busy. I don't see any "confusions" in my paragraph at all besides to stay open minded and not to belief in absolutist statements.

Originally Posted by joecooool

*sighs*

ill address a few of the confusions in your paragraph:

1- atheism is not a belief, its a lack of belief in god

Yes, I am fully aware of this, but it still represents your viewpoint or "beliefs", even if they are non-beliefs. You don't believe in god = You DO believe there is no god. If you want to be technical, everybody is an atheist unless they believe in every single god. One could believe in the Christian god, but reject the greek gods. Therefor they are atheistic towards the greek gods.

3- the reason i write is to educate and inform people of the fact that gods existence is unknown, and therefore belief that god exists objectively is unjustified

There's nothing wrong with educating people, but what I see is an argument that has no end and many repeated statements. I feel that belief in a higher power is something that should be personal and found on your own. Not by listening to somebody preaching over the internet. The bottom line is people are not going to care or listen if they are set in their beliefs, no matter what you say.

4- faith is nothing more then an excuse to believe things without evidence, if i have faith i can fly can i? will you tell me i cant? thats all i do towards the faith in god

That's why it is called faith, my friend. Faith by definition is blind. I don't see a problem with having faith at all. I have faith that my lifestyle (not worshiping any god) is perfectly fine and there will be no consequences for my actions. I'm sure you do to. I don't see why you have a problem with this.

5- belief that the soul, ghosts are any of that other stuff you mentioned objectively exists is also unjustified, irrational.

But it is also just a belief, which was my point. I didn't say they definitely existed. I said they can't be proven, but many believe in them. Who are you to say what beliefs are justified and what aren't, anyways? The point was that just because science can't explain something, does not mean it doesn't exist. What about someone who sees a flying saucer, but doesn't have proof. He KNOWS they exist, but others do not and science can't prove it (publicly at least).

6- you saying to let people believe what they want is self refuting, because i believe gods existence is unknown, so take your own advice and let me believe what i want. and talk about it.

I believe it is unknown as well. BUT THAT'S JUST A BELIEF!! It is not universal truth. There's a difference between talking about your beliefs and putting others down because of theirs. I see no reason for that. If somebody comes up to me and says they believe in a god I have no problem with that. I can respect it. If someone comes up to me and says "I can prove god, scientifically", then I have a problem, because it's obviously not true. Having beliefs is what makes us human. We want an explanation for everything so we fill in the gaps with what we see fit.

7-the big bang has mainstream scientific consensus.

But it's not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. You just committed the fallacy of appeal to popularity. The majority of the scientific community believes man made global warming is real and a threat, but I have serious doubts about that as well. Most of the alleged melted ice is back and bigger than it was.

I didn't respond to everything because I either agreed with the rest or didn't feel a need to argue it. I'm a strong advocate of freedom. Especially freedom of religion. I don't see any harm in believing in god at all, so why persecute people for doing it?

Let me ask you one question.

Do you believe in cause and effect?

I assume you do, since you believe in matter and the laws of physics and that they are absolute. So what caused the big bang? What caused that? And that? You go into the same exact infinite regression that you do with god when you talk about "who created the creator". This is why I don't believe in any absolute statements unless they are proven 100%. (I prefer the string theory as well as far as the universe goes).

[robc]

Originally Posted by joecooool

since you cannot prove your god, the default belief is simply that existence is eternal, and therefore did not pop out of anything

you can't prove the statement you just made either.
Existence is eternal - how do you know that? Where is the proof?
And since you can't prove that God doesn't exist, then that statement becomes just a belief of yours and not necessarily shared by everyone/anyone else.

[Jamie]

I've been listening to The Power of Now (Eckhart Tolle); he seems to have a very good handle on the 'god issue'.

[Brand X]

Haven't you heard God is dead. So count me in as I don't believe in God

[dinc]

I believe in God. I am a Catholic.

I am not a Catholic for my family. I am not a Catholic for me. I have tried to find holes in Catholic dogma in order to get out of the Catholic faith, but I haven't yet. I am a Catholic, not by faith (God hasn't graced me with that gift yet) but by intellect.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dinc

I believe in God. I am a Catholic.

I am not a Catholic for my family. I am not a Catholic for me. I have tried to find holes in Catholic dogma in order to get out of the Catholic faith, but I haven't yet. I am a Catholic, not by faith (God hasn't graced me with that gift yet) but by intellect.

That's a fascinating position, sir. That seems to suggest you would invite others to shoot bullets through your conclusions, unless I misinterpret?

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

That's a fascinating position, sir. That seems to suggest you would invite others to shoot bullets through your conclusions, unless I misinterpret?

Hahahaha, that sounds so menacing. I want to see a dialectical battle go down!

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Brand X

Haven't you heard God is dead. So count me in as I don't believe in God

You don't believe in God because other people don't ?

I know you didn't mean it like that but it's probably true. I think we would all believe in God if we were born in a truly religious society.

[Strokes]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Well that's what we're brainwashed to believe our entire lives.

Personally I don't put much stock in it.

A perfect point, I'm not sure what you intended to convey in it, but it makes sense, we were born to believe that we are humans because that is the word that defines what we mortally are, and yet the fact remains that we are much ore than a simple sound.

what is reality?
a maze

what is life
trying to get through the maze

what is science
measuring the maze

what is religion
guessing at why the maze is here

what are video games?
playing a simulation of the maze within the maze

what is free will
choosing which path you take within the maze

what is determinism
only having one path in the maze

who am i?
the software guidance system that directs my biological hardware unit through the maze

what is happiness?
finding some cheese in the maze

Oh you're so clever

its a good thing we have science which gives us objective knowledge of the one objective reality. so we can put down guesses and subjective points of view and all agree on something. that we are not rats in a maze, that we are humans, and that the universe is not intelligent or god, thats its matter and natural laws

You obviously think that those who believe in GOD are just a bunch of skeptical people who only believe what they're taught and go on believing it until the day they die. Well let me ask you something, were you taught to believe in GOD when you were young? If so, when did you stop and why? Did you find that the entire concept was illogical? Then let me say something to you, the atheist theory of "The Big Bang" is completely illogical. You say that the world is nothing more than matter and natural laws, yet in what way is it possible for life itself to be able to support eachother in every way of the earth? the sun that helps the trees grow that we have oxygen? The plants that keep us healthy and grow of the water of the rain? I need to ask you, how can you belive that science and evolution was able to do this. Science does not have a mind of its own, nor is it able to support the earth and it inhabitants, people, to have any type of mindset, love, or any feeling at all for that matter? Science is nothing more than people who look for a higher purpose in things and want to break off from tha fact that it is GOD to create their own explanation of things. In religion, the rain is water, what cleanses us, what makes the plants grow so that life may prosper. In science, it's the same thing, and yet it is precipitation. It is man deriving from religious beliefs, whether they believe in GOD or not to create their own explanation.
Sure, men's science has boosted life, helped us live longer, help the world become a better place, and yet that is them striving for goodness, and is that not what GOD is? Anything that man can conjure up to make their own explanation of things religion already supports, goodness, helping the sick, stopping disease and hunger, all these good things does GOD not speak of? Of course he does! Therefore in who's image are we in, it makes perfect sense, evolution is merely what men who find GOD illogical believe in and yet there is nothing to support its truth. In what way does a "big bang" substitute an actual GOD? It doesn't and yet religion does, that, is the universe.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Strokes

Then let me say something to you, the atheist theory of "The Big Bang" is completely illogical.

1) It's a scientific theory, not an "atheist theory".
2) Point out where it's illogical or don't comment on things you don't understand.

Originally Posted by Strokes

Science is nothing more than people who look for a higher purpose in things and want to break off from tha fact that it is GOD to create their own explanation of things.

Gross misrepresentation.

Originally Posted by Strokes

Sure, men's science has boosted life, helped us live longer, help the world become a better place, and yet that is them striving for goodness, and is that not what GOD is?

That's humanity.

Originally Posted by Strokes

evolution is merely what men who find GOD illogical believe in and yet there is nothing to support its truth.

Read this site. Plenty of support there. And that's just one of many. But you don't have to believe what you read either. Ask any animal breeder about selecting for favourable traits. Nothing to support it? Where's your disproof of the abundant evidence which we've collected since before Darwin's time? Unless you can produce anything to challenge the accepted scientific understanding, once again, keep your comments to yourself.

[Strokes]

1) It's a scientific theory, not an "atheist theory".
2) Point out where it's illogical or don't comment on things you don't understand.

Anything that derides the word of GOD which clearly and bluntly states in any Christian term whatsoever that he created the world suggests that you are in fact doubting it and saying that it is not true, which is what atheists believe. And any atheists who does not belive it.....well let's face it, do you believe we popped into existence? And a Christian scientist who believes it might want to go back and remember what being a Christian means because this directly contradicts it.

I already pointed out where it is illogical if you did not see.

Gross misrepresentation.

Is it now? And how so?

That's humanity.

Oh, now it all becomes clear. It's humanity, yes, and tell me, what is your definition of humanity? Are we just a bunch of cads who appeared here from nothing? Do we love because we evolved and developed from our very own naive minds to think that way? Do you honestly believe we are smart enough to do this? Humanity is people. Humanity is directly children of a likeness, we are indeed smart enought to figure that even from the times of old this makes no sense. What is humanity? Merely a human body that was randomly placed in a universe?

Read this site. Plenty of support there. And that's just one of many. But you don't have to believe what you read either. Ask any animal breeder about selecting for favourable traits. Nothing to support it? Where's your disproof of the abundant evidence which we've collected since before Darwin's time? Unless you can produce anything to challenge the accepted scientific understanding, once again, keep your comments to yourself.

Have I not already repeated? What is the theory of selective breeding? Punett Squares? A human theory of genetics and heredity! But does it really matter yet for advancing our way of life while we live on earth? It is to boost the earth, goodness for the race of people! Yet life is not just a large battleground to finding the meaning of it and advancing humankind! Do many atheists not belive in Armageddon? So what will their efforts have meant then? What you basically say is that we just arrived, and that there is therefore no purpose at all to our existence. Nothing cannot create knowledge and love, and it certainly cannot create beings that are smart enough to refute them or even have the ability to come up with a theory about it in the first place. Can a manmade couch give us a theory on why it's here? It's that same concept, just common sense. Even the couch itself is man's own rendition of what they feel as comfort, but that's just making a point.

And thanks for that little comment "You don't have to believe what you read either", because assuredly I say to you that I will not, and that I've not only got my supporters, but some that are not of this world. Salutations.

[Brand X]

I will include I wish I believed in God or Gods. Gosh it would be great to know that after I die I could go to a place thats like Disneyland everyday. Heck, I will settle for Hell. At least my exsistance still continues after my death. This is not ment to make fun of Heaven and I really do wish I believed in a God. Many athiest first time discovering there is no God don't always feel happy about their discission. The right answer is not always the one you want but you know it is right. Sorry kinda went off topic.

P.S. I might even consider myself Agnostic at times

[Plato]

A tad extremist Strokes. Clearly scientists who get involved with philosophical and theological arguments, like Richard Dawkins, are A PAIN IN THE ASS because they don't have a clue but there are plenty of very credible people in the subject who would poke (credible) holes in any arguments put forward for the existence of God or at the very least be able to demonstrate that belief in God is not as rationally certain as you might like to think. Having said that this emphasis on rationality is misleading... rationality ultimately refutes itself when applied to metaphysical concepts. Hence Wittgenstein's assertion that rationality is nothing more than a language game and a sign to us that we should stop pretending to know we're right.

Originally Posted by Strokes

why are they doing all these good things for the world? Because science told them to? That just goes to show that even those who do not believe in GOD are in his image.

You don't need to believe in God to have a moral code. As for us being in 'his' image... I find that concept bizarre. Why place such limitations on God?

[Strokes]

this emphasis on rationality is misleading... rationality ultimately refutes itself when applied to metaphysical concepts. Hence Wittgenstein's assertion that rationality is nothing more than a language game and a sign to us that we should stop pretending to know we're right.

It's true that rationality, when compared to metaphysical views, is directly contradicted because in that the two naturally butt heads. But rationality, or even metaphysics, not always substitute for an actual faith or in truth and actual understanding of the concept of being, because each in their own pose an argument of what comes with, not only the understanding of things, but common sense itself, and neither do always give the correct interpretation.

You don't need to believe in God to have a moral code. As for us being in 'his' image... I find that concept bizarre. Why place such limitations on God?

Yes as I said it is actually more than possible for a person to go about their life with correct moral principles, but if you believe in GOD this is where all goodness lies, and therefore we are like him because we want that goodness as well, and if you are to be created by one, you are like them whether you believe in their creating you or not.

And about the concept being bizarre, and placing "limitations" on GOD, what it means is that we are able to enjoy normal humane feelings, like love, happiness, etc., it does not mean in any way that we are actually like him, in every way, shape, and form, in all glory and what have you, but simply by mindset and emotion, etc.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Plato

Hahahaha, that sounds so menacing. I want to see a dialectical battle go down!

Go read the old threads, then.

It was an honest question. I'm perfectly willing to rip apart his faithless beliefs if that's what he actually wants; his comments actively suggest it (again, unless I misunderstood). But how hard could it be to poke holes in the Catholic dogma? Always willing to lend a hand, me.

If he doesn't want it, then I don't mind letting him stay a Catholic.

[Plato]

Have you ever studied the classic arguments for and against God? I found an in-depth study as part of my philosophy degree to be very illuminating... I recommend it to all to take some time to understand these arguments. The main benefit I found was not a change in my beliefs but that I no longer regarded theists as deluded fools. Stokes, perhaps you could return the favour.

Originally Posted by Strokes

It's true that rationality, when compared to metaphysical views, is directly contradicted because in that the two naturally butt heads. But rationality, or even metaphysics, not always substitute for an actual faith or in truth and actual understanding of the concept of being, because each in their own pose an argument of what comes with, not only the understanding of things, but common sense itself, and neither do always give the correct interpretation.

Rationality doesn't contradict anything... apart from itself! My point was not that rationality contradicts metaphysical views, but that metaphysics is BEYOND rationality.

Originally Posted by Strokes

Yes as I said it is actually more than possible for a person to go about their life with correct moral principles, but if you believe in GOD this is where all goodness lies, and therefore we are like him because we want that goodness as well, and if you are to be created by one, you are like them whether you believe in their creating you or not.

Yes, if you believe in God...

Originally Posted by Strokes

And about the concept being bizarre, and placing "limitations" on GOD, what it means is that we are able to enjoy normal humane feelings, like love, happiness, etc., it does not mean in any way that we are actually like him, in every way, shape, and form, in all glory and what have you, but simply by mindset and emotion, etc.

Friend, why would God think and feel emotions the way we do? That is exactly the limitation I'm suggesting. To think we are comparable to God is to limit him with human intelligence. My concept of God goes beyond human intelligence... and by this I don't mean a higher IQ, I mean something we cannot even comprehend.

[Strokes]

Have you ever studied the classic arguments for and against God? I found an in-depth study as part of my philosophy degree to be very illuminating... I recommend it to all to take some time to understand these arguments.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "classic" arguments, but yes, I have read many and I do find the light in each belief of any standard, yet certainly some more than others.

The main benefit I found was not a change in my beliefs but that I no longer regarded theists as deluded fools. Stokes, perhaps you could return the favour.

I tend to come off that way because in delicate situations my arguments become even more one-sided. Though, even as I deny and debate each of an atheist's (or something of the likeness) beliefs, I do respect them, and even as I don't agree I do realize that these folks are very educated in their own arguments and do not regard them as fools as much as I do anyone else, even those I side with.

Rationality doesn't contradict anything... apart from itself! My point was not that rationality contradicts metaphysical views, but that metaphysics is BEYOND rationality.

But this is your own speaking.

Yes, if you believe in God...

And I do, and see no explanation otherwise, but each has his own...

Friend, why would God think and feel emotions the way we do? That is exactly the limitation I'm suggesting. To think we are comparable to God is to limit him with human intelligence. My concept of God goes beyond human intelligence... and by this I don't mean a higher IQ, I mean something we cannot even comprehend.

I understand exactly what you mean and it is what I was trying to say if it did not become clear. We are in no way comparable at all. He is not necessarily like us, but rather, we share similar qualities, simple ones that we as humans are able to comprehend, if someone were to say that a sin would "sadden" him, then we are like him in the way we are able to feel sadness, but nothing more. Yes, he definitely goes beyond aything that human intelligence can even go to ponder, and I did not mean to imply that if I had in any way.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Strokes

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "classic" arguments, but yes, I have read many and I do find the light in each belief of any standard, yet certainly some more than others.

They are called the design argument, the cosmological argument and the ontological argument. All the (philosophical) arguments for the existence of God fit into these categories. The revealed (revealed, as in known through the holy scriptures) theological knowledge of God must be approached separately from the philosophical so we know what basis we are debating from.

As for metaphysics being beyond rationality... that is not my opinion by any means. If you're ever really bored try reading some of Wittgenstein's later writings.