God
-
John McIlroy wrote: Why would anyone believe stories of heaven or hell when the person offering the story had absolutely no evidence? For someone who argues pro-religion, and particularly pro-god, that is a stupid comment to make when the only supporting evidence is a book written over thousands of years by hundreds of different people based on generation-told stories. Call that proof? Considering how a story changes when told amongst a room full of people all present at the same time, I wouldn’t place too much faith in it's accuracy - no matter what the topic. Then of course we have personal experiences. Those again cannot be used as proof, considering that you can't get off from a murder charge by saying "but my body was suddenly taken over by a divine force". You can't say "oh, but it's okay in this case just not in others." Then that leaves the age old "well what else could there be?" Well, guess what - I can't tell you. I don't know the inner workings of the universe and everything in it. But then again, neither do you, and neither did those creative folk thousands of years ago. John McIlroy wrote: In fact, why wouldn't those stories seem utterly ridiculous to the people who heard them, akin to me promising you that if you behaved I'd give you a money tree that grew dollar bills? That holds no weight in this context, seeing as we know for a fact that dollar bills do not grow on trees, just as we know for a fact that we won't bounce very high when we jump from a very tall building. Four hundred years ago we believed the world was flat; three hundred years ago we believed the sun revolved around the earth; two hundred years ago we believed the earth was solid; one hundred years ago we believed we had invented everything that was ever to be invented; fifty years ago space travel was science fiction, and yet we know for a fact that the world is elliptical; we know for a fact that the earth revolves around the sun; we know for a fact that the earth is made of layers; we know for a fact that invention will continue for as long as there are inventors; earlier this year we sent the first tourist into space. Thousands of years ago we did not know that there wasn't a god, nor indeed that there was, but we assumed there must be for various reasons (e.g. Paley's watch theory, inexplicable experiences, etc). Today we have found other proofs to replace most of the reasoning behind a belief in a superhuman divine being. Yet still ther
David-- That was quite the treatise. I can't do it justice. I have an exam tomorrow morning and am travelling tomorrow afternoon. Otherwise I would be happy to bat this around a while longer. I'll have to just focus in a couple of point. The most important being your rejection of love and forgiveness as spiritual precepts. If they are physical, what is the physical origin and attributes of love? What color is it? What are its dimensions? Is it a chemical reaction in the brain? What area of the brain is it local to? Is it energy? Potential or kinetic? Where is it stored? How do we measure it? This is the frustrating part of a conversation with a materialist. While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate the most important things in life... like love or compassion. Why is that? The memory of a computer has an understandable storage mechanism, and a file has a specific "address" and physical location, but when it comes to people, who according to materialists are nothing but a different kind of computer, then nothing is understood about the physical dimensions of thought, or acts of the will, etc. When materialists come up with the size, shape, and molecular weight of forgiveness... then maybe I'll start doubting my religion. The scientific types laugh at the naivety of religious people who embrace a greater spiritual reality... but the fact that the things most important to us... happiness, love, satisfaction, forgiveness, etc... have no apparent "physicality"... even though the physical is supposed to represent the sum total of reality... does not seem to embarass them at all. Weird... JM
-
David-- That was quite the treatise. I can't do it justice. I have an exam tomorrow morning and am travelling tomorrow afternoon. Otherwise I would be happy to bat this around a while longer. I'll have to just focus in a couple of point. The most important being your rejection of love and forgiveness as spiritual precepts. If they are physical, what is the physical origin and attributes of love? What color is it? What are its dimensions? Is it a chemical reaction in the brain? What area of the brain is it local to? Is it energy? Potential or kinetic? Where is it stored? How do we measure it? This is the frustrating part of a conversation with a materialist. While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate things like love or compassion. Why is that? The memory of a computer has an understandable storage mechanism, and a file has a specific "address" and physical location, but when it comes to people, who according to materialists are nothing but a different kind of computer, then nothing is understood about the physical dimensions of thought, or acts of the will, etc. When materialists come up with the size, shape, and molecular weight of forgiveness... then maybe I'll start doubting my religion. But until then... JM
John McIlroy wrote: If they are physical, what is the physical origin and attributes of love? What color is it? What are its dimensions? Is it a chemical reaction in the brain? What area of the brain is it local to? Is it energy? Potential or kinetic? Where is it stored? How do we measure it? The same could be said about pain, hunger, indeed every one of our senses could be described like that too. I meant “physical” as in “physical behaviour”. All mammals show love for their offspring during their upbringing, and all mammal parents will forgive their offspring too. If a baby mammal kills its brother, its mother will not punish it. Because something cannot be measured does not mean anything. John McIlroy wrote: While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate things like love or compassion. Why is that? Love and compassion (especially love and compassion) are very obviously physical things. Most mammals are pre-programmed with love and compassion, as without it they’re species is very unlikely to stay around for very long. Think about the Cuckoo (okay, I know it’s not a mammal, but the concept is the same). They lay their eggs in another birds nest, and when they hatch they are reared by the other birds as if they were their own. This is because of love and compassion, or if you’d prefer, devotion and care, which according to Oxford are one and the same in meaning. This cannot be described as purely maternal instinct, as if a woman gives birth to a pig then to her it would be her child, and she would love and have compassion for it, but the father would only love and care for it out of his own love and care for the woman (i.e. no parental instinct would be present as it is not his child). And once more: John McIlroy wrote: While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate things like love or compassion. Why is that? Which brings me back to my “if you can't explain it, it must be god”. Unfortunately, this particular example can be explained – although I have no doubt not done it justice. John McIlroy wrote: When materialists come up with the size, shape, and molecular weight of forgiveness... then maybe I'll start doubting my religion. But until then... That is the old justifying a justification “thing” I was talking about. If I could provide you with sch
-
David-- That was quite the treatise. I can't do it justice. I have an exam tomorrow morning and am travelling tomorrow afternoon. Otherwise I would be happy to bat this around a while longer. I'll have to just focus in a couple of point. The most important being your rejection of love and forgiveness as spiritual precepts. If they are physical, what is the physical origin and attributes of love? What color is it? What are its dimensions? Is it a chemical reaction in the brain? What area of the brain is it local to? Is it energy? Potential or kinetic? Where is it stored? How do we measure it? This is the frustrating part of a conversation with a materialist. While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate the most important things in life... like love or compassion. Why is that? The memory of a computer has an understandable storage mechanism, and a file has a specific "address" and physical location, but when it comes to people, who according to materialists are nothing but a different kind of computer, then nothing is understood about the physical dimensions of thought, or acts of the will, etc. When materialists come up with the size, shape, and molecular weight of forgiveness... then maybe I'll start doubting my religion. The scientific types laugh at the naivety of religious people who embrace a greater spiritual reality... but the fact that the things most important to us... happiness, love, satisfaction, forgiveness, etc... have no apparent "physicality"... even though the physical is supposed to represent the sum total of reality... does not seem to embarass them at all. Weird... JM
A second reply? Why not just edit your original? Anyway, as I have already answered that one, I will address your additions below: John McIlroy wrote: The memory of a computer has an understandable storage mechanism, and a file has a specific "address" and physical location, but when it comes to people, who according to materialists are nothing but a different kind of computer, then nothing is understood about the physical dimensions of thought, or acts of the will, etc. This argument again has no meaning given the context and what we are discussing. We designed computers, so of course we will understand every minute detail about them. We did not design our genes, not the universe around us, so how can we possibly hope to have the same level of understanding? John McIlroy wrote: The scientific types laugh at the naivety of religious people who embrace a greater spiritual reality... but the fact that the things most important to us... happiness, love, satisfaction, forgiveness, etc... have no apparent "physicality"... even though the physical is supposed to represent the sum total of reality... does not seem to embarass them at all. I don’t think you will find any self-respectable person who laughs at the naivety of religious people. The scientific types I presume you are referring to may laugh at the naivety of religious arguments and the naivety of their so called proof, but that is completely different. Besides which, many of these scientific types are religions people themselves, who somehow manage to justify their findings in the same way as you justified yourself in your duplicate reply. As to the rest, I can only take you back to my previous reply regarding what mankind believed 4, 3, 2 and 1 centuries ago. How can you state that we should know everything about everything? To achieve that would be to achieve the impossible. To achieve that would create god from those who held the knowledge. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
-
John McIlroy wrote: If they are physical, what is the physical origin and attributes of love? What color is it? What are its dimensions? Is it a chemical reaction in the brain? What area of the brain is it local to? Is it energy? Potential or kinetic? Where is it stored? How do we measure it? The same could be said about pain, hunger, indeed every one of our senses could be described like that too. I meant “physical” as in “physical behaviour”. All mammals show love for their offspring during their upbringing, and all mammal parents will forgive their offspring too. If a baby mammal kills its brother, its mother will not punish it. Because something cannot be measured does not mean anything. John McIlroy wrote: While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate things like love or compassion. Why is that? Love and compassion (especially love and compassion) are very obviously physical things. Most mammals are pre-programmed with love and compassion, as without it they’re species is very unlikely to stay around for very long. Think about the Cuckoo (okay, I know it’s not a mammal, but the concept is the same). They lay their eggs in another birds nest, and when they hatch they are reared by the other birds as if they were their own. This is because of love and compassion, or if you’d prefer, devotion and care, which according to Oxford are one and the same in meaning. This cannot be described as purely maternal instinct, as if a woman gives birth to a pig then to her it would be her child, and she would love and have compassion for it, but the father would only love and care for it out of his own love and care for the woman (i.e. no parental instinct would be present as it is not his child). And once more: John McIlroy wrote: While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate things like love or compassion. Why is that? Which brings me back to my “if you can't explain it, it must be god”. Unfortunately, this particular example can be explained – although I have no doubt not done it justice. John McIlroy wrote: When materialists come up with the size, shape, and molecular weight of forgiveness... then maybe I'll start doubting my religion. But until then... That is the old justifying a justification “thing” I was talking about. If I could provide you with sch
David-- I think you might be taking this mammal thing too far. A lioness will often kill one of her cubs and then eat it, and none of the lions give it a second thought. heck they join in. Not the ype of behaviour you would see in human mammals. However, you said: "Love and compassion (especially love and compassion) are very obviously physical things. Most mammals are pre-programmed with love and compassion, as without it they’re species is very unlikely to stay around for very long." Okay then David, if they are physical give the physical attributes, how it stored, how it distributed, what form it takes, what its dimensions are. All you have said is that the effects of love are physically observable. I don't want to see the effects... I want to see love itself... in its raw physical form. Even if I am not displaying any behaviour of love toward my daughter... the love is still there. Well where is it stored? What is the mechanism? How is it phyically deployed? Forgetting for a second that materialists still can't determine whether light is a particle or a wave... scientists generally use the laws of physics to describe and understand physical systems. If a person is nothing more than a physical system, then why can't the physical system for voluntary movement, for example, be explained in a purely physical way? What is the mechanism for storing memories? How can we define consciousness? What color is love? You make it sound as if it is nitpicking to demand a 100% physical explanation for love. It isn't. If we are a merely a physical system... then everything ought to be explainable through a merely physical cause and effect relationship. I'm not looking for the genetic forgiveness trait... I'm looking for forgiveness itself... in all its physical reality. But materialists have NO answers when it comes to even an elementary physical explanation of human experience... but we are the ones accused of being naive. JM
-
A second reply? Why not just edit your original? Anyway, as I have already answered that one, I will address your additions below: John McIlroy wrote: The memory of a computer has an understandable storage mechanism, and a file has a specific "address" and physical location, but when it comes to people, who according to materialists are nothing but a different kind of computer, then nothing is understood about the physical dimensions of thought, or acts of the will, etc. This argument again has no meaning given the context and what we are discussing. We designed computers, so of course we will understand every minute detail about them. We did not design our genes, not the universe around us, so how can we possibly hope to have the same level of understanding? John McIlroy wrote: The scientific types laugh at the naivety of religious people who embrace a greater spiritual reality... but the fact that the things most important to us... happiness, love, satisfaction, forgiveness, etc... have no apparent "physicality"... even though the physical is supposed to represent the sum total of reality... does not seem to embarass them at all. I don’t think you will find any self-respectable person who laughs at the naivety of religious people. The scientific types I presume you are referring to may laugh at the naivety of religious arguments and the naivety of their so called proof, but that is completely different. Besides which, many of these scientific types are religions people themselves, who somehow manage to justify their findings in the same way as you justified yourself in your duplicate reply. As to the rest, I can only take you back to my previous reply regarding what mankind believed 4, 3, 2 and 1 centuries ago. How can you state that we should know everything about everything? To achieve that would be to achieve the impossible. To achieve that would create god from those who held the knowledge. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
Religious folks are accused on not understanding something and then inventing God to explain it. Materialist have no physical explanation for human behaviour but yet insist that it is physical anyway, even though they have no physical proof. That, my friend, is not science but scientism. What makes it worse is that religious people clearly make the point that God exists outside of time and space is impenetrable to our scientific instruments. A verifiable god would be a man-invented god. But materialists insist on a 100% physical reality, so the onus is on them to have physical explanations, and when they don't, they insist it is physical anyway. Like I said... weird. Quite frankly I think the spiritual approach to ultimate reality makes a whole lot more sense that a scientific materialist approach, which makes no sense whatsoever, even though it insists that it is the only reality.
-
David-- I think you might be taking this mammal thing too far. A lioness will often kill one of her cubs and then eat it, and none of the lions give it a second thought. heck they join in. Not the ype of behaviour you would see in human mammals. However, you said: "Love and compassion (especially love and compassion) are very obviously physical things. Most mammals are pre-programmed with love and compassion, as without it they’re species is very unlikely to stay around for very long." Okay then David, if they are physical give the physical attributes, how it stored, how it distributed, what form it takes, what its dimensions are. All you have said is that the effects of love are physically observable. I don't want to see the effects... I want to see love itself... in its raw physical form. Even if I am not displaying any behaviour of love toward my daughter... the love is still there. Well where is it stored? What is the mechanism? How is it phyically deployed? Forgetting for a second that materialists still can't determine whether light is a particle or a wave... scientists generally use the laws of physics to describe and understand physical systems. If a person is nothing more than a physical system, then why can't the physical system for voluntary movement, for example, be explained in a purely physical way? What is the mechanism for storing memories? How can we define consciousness? What color is love? You make it sound as if it is nitpicking to demand a 100% physical explanation for love. It isn't. If we are a merely a physical system... then everything ought to be explainable through a merely physical cause and effect relationship. I'm not looking for the genetic forgiveness trait... I'm looking for forgiveness itself... in all its physical reality. But materialists have NO answers when it comes to even an elementary physical explanation of human experience... but we are the ones accused of being naive. JM
John McIlroy wrote: A lioness will often kill one of her cubs and then eat it, and none of the lions give it a second thought. heck they join in. Not the type of behaviour you would see in human mammals. Yes, and this is done to ensure the survival of either (a) the new males genes, or (b) at least one of the offspring. And this behaviour for those very reasons is commonplace amongst tribes in the Congo region of central Africa. John McIlroy wrote: Okay then David, if they are physical give the physical attributes, how it stored, how it distributed, what form it takes, what its dimensions are. Did you read my reply? If pain spiritual? If not, give my it’s physical attributes, etc. Love is an emotion; it is transmitted electronically as every signal in [your] body is at some stage in the process. It takes the form of chemical changes in the makeup of our bodies, either electronically or otherwise. Its size would presumably be the same as that of every other signal, and indefinable as a constant. However, again, did you read my reply? John McIlroy wrote: All you have said is that the effects of love are physically observable. I don't want to see the effects... I want to see love itself... in its raw physical form. And I want to see the actual money in my bank account (not the observable effects like the printed paper I can obtain in exchange for it). The fact is I can't, but does that mean it is not there or that it requires faith? I can't see the electrons whizzing round atoms that make up some storage drive/tape/whatever somewhere in the States, that stores the binary information translating to my account data, but it is still physically there. John McIlroy wrote: Forgetting for a second that materialists still can't determine whether light is a particle or a wave. As I understand it, it is generally accepted that light displays the characteristics of both particles and waves. What is to say that it cannot be transmitted as both? John McIlroy wrote: scientists generally use the laws of physics to describe and understand physical systems. Man generally uses the laws of physics (being a study of the universe around us) to describe and understand any system. That’s the way we derive our knowledge – observation. Because something cannot be observed does not mean it is not there. John McIlroy wrote: If
-
Henry Jacobs wrote: Without the ramifications of life after death humans would do anything they want; steal, kill, rape, lie, covet, etc. That has got to be the stupidist argument I have ever heard. I do not believe anything will happen to what I call "me" after I die, short of the basic physical components that make up my mind and body being recycled as they have been billions of times before I occupied them. Therefore, by your logic, I do anything I want? I am therefore a thief, a murderer, a rapist, a lier, etc, etc. Yeah right. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
David Wulff wrote: That has got to be the stupidist argument I have ever heard. I was not saying that heaven or hell exists. I was pointing out a possible reason it was created by humans. The steal, kill, rape list was suppose to be a play on the ten commandments.
-
Religious folks are accused on not understanding something and then inventing God to explain it. Materialist have no physical explanation for human behaviour but yet insist that it is physical anyway, even though they have no physical proof. That, my friend, is not science but scientism. What makes it worse is that religious people clearly make the point that God exists outside of time and space is impenetrable to our scientific instruments. A verifiable god would be a man-invented god. But materialists insist on a 100% physical reality, so the onus is on them to have physical explanations, and when they don't, they insist it is physical anyway. Like I said... weird. Quite frankly I think the spiritual approach to ultimate reality makes a whole lot more sense that a scientific materialist approach, which makes no sense whatsoever, even though it insists that it is the only reality.
John McIlroy wrote: Religious folks are accused on not understanding something and then inventing God to explain it. Religious people use god to explain things they don’t understand, giving them a perceived understanding that they believe they hold, without any real grounding. John McIlroy wrote: Materialist have no physical explanation for human behaviour but yet insist that it is physical anyway, even though they have no physical proof. Err... and vice versa. John McIlroy wrote: That, my friend, is not science but scientism. That, my friend, is not scientism by pragmatism. John McIlroy wrote: What makes it worse is that religious people clearly make the point that God exists outside of time and space is impenetrable to our scientific instruments. A verifiable god would be a man-invented god. I was going to say “prove it”, but of course, you can’t – just as I can’t disprove it. Does that make it fact? I still stand by my belief that there are herds of five legged unicorns on Venus. Is that fact or fantasy? Can you prove/disprove it? Neigh – I mean No. ;) John McIlroy wrote: Like I said... weird Like I said... rational. John McIlroy wrote: Quite frankly I think the spiritual approach to ultimate reality makes a whole lot more sense that a scientific materialist approach, which makes no sense whatsoever, even though it insists that it is the only reality. Swap the parties and re-read that paragraph. I rest my case (literally for tonight, as it is 3AM and I need sleep). ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
-
Tim, You're not a Thomist? I thought it was "esse principi." But God himself told us His name to Moses in Exodus. I believe He called himself.... "I AM who AM." That about sums it up! JM
I realize this is an old thread at this point, but thought I'd mention that I see now by Thomist you meant Aquinas, whose work I am not all that familiar with. But "I AM who AM." - which I have heard as 'I am _that_ I am' - isnt that a bit pantheistic as well? Oh, and the bit about 'her creation' was gratuitously slimy as well. Sorry about that.
-
Well this is really the kind of conversation you need to have after a few drinks in warm pub on a cold winter night. So I'm not really in a position to trot out an entire apologia... but I just always thought the "people invented God" argument was totally illogical. Our lives and language are full on non-physical ideas and concepts that directly point to a non-physical dimension of our experience here on earth. But I don't have the time or energy to develop the whole thesis here.
... but I just always thought the "people invented God" argument was totally illogical. John, Why should the idea that "people"--who definitely exist, and who are indisputably capable of believing in the most ridiculous things--invented "God" seem less logical than the idea that a "God"--whose existence can only ever be "believed" and never proved--invented us. If you try to bring "logic" into arguments for spirituality you are getting onto very shaky ground. Steve T. Philosophy: Questions which may never be answered. Religion: Answers which may never be questioned.
-
Kevin Ranville wrote: You can't prove He does exist, but you can't prove he doesn't exist either. You *can* prove that He exists, but because of the issues related to free will, the proof is to the individual. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
You *can* prove that He exists, but because of the issues related to free will, the proof is to the individual. Christian This is true, and this kind of "proof" if no more or less valid for the existence of a god than it is for the existence of leprechauns and space aliens. Steve T. Philosophy: Questions which may never be answered. Religion: Answers which may never be questioned.
-
... but I just always thought the "people invented God" argument was totally illogical. John, Why should the idea that "people"--who definitely exist, and who are indisputably capable of believing in the most ridiculous things--invented "God" seem less logical than the idea that a "God"--whose existence can only ever be "believed" and never proved--invented us. If you try to bring "logic" into arguments for spirituality you are getting onto very shaky ground. Steve T. Philosophy: Questions which may never be answered. Religion: Answers which may never be questioned.
Steve-- Reread my posts... I think I made my point. dont assme what you are trying to prove. JM
-
Steve-- Reread my posts... I think I made my point. dont assme what you are trying to prove. JM
Steve-- Reread my posts... I think I made my point. dont assme what you are trying to prove. JM John, I read all of your posts. I don't think I need to read them again. You made several points. Correct me if I'm wrong but your main points seem to be that humans would never have had a reason to ponder death and what lies beyond if there really was no "beyond", (If everything eventually died, and if death was as natural as eating and breathing... why would it raise any questions or fears at all. ) and that if there is no physical, measureable basis for emotions like love and compassion then they must be derived from a god. On the first point: You concede that there could be a survival instict (...Not that we wouldn't instinctually try and avoid death... ) So could not a fear of death simply be a highly refined and intellectualized "survival instict" - come about as a consequence of evolution. This could also explain the seemingly contradictory situation in which the fear of death is much stronger in young people and tapers off in the elderly (religeous or not) - when the individual is, in fact, closer to death. Is this an just accepting of the inevitable, or is it that the survival of the species no longer relies on the survival of the individual beyond child rearing age. As for the second point--...If they are physical, what is the physical origin and attributes of love? What color is it? What are its dimensions? Is it a chemical reaction in the brain? What area of the brain is it local to? Is it energy? Potential or kinetic? Where is it stored? ...--Whether or not emotions will ever be shown to have a physical basis is still open to speculation. But declaring them to be gifts from God simply because we have not yet found their physical basis--if it exists--is the equivalent of declaring that a person's predisposition to a terrible diseases is a curse from God. No ... we can't yet point to a region in the central nervous system and say "That configuration of synapses and ganglions means you will be a loving, caring person." but just a few years ago we couldn't point to a region on a chromosome and say "This SNP (a DNA sequence variation) means that you will have a very high liklihood of developing diabetes later in life." We can do that now. But our ability to point to the (very physical) SNP that encodes for a predisposition to a disease will not satisfy those who previously believed that disease was a punishment from God - they will simply shift their argumen
-
Religious folks are accused on not understanding something and then inventing God to explain it. Materialist have no physical explanation for human behaviour but yet insist that it is physical anyway, even though they have no physical proof. That, my friend, is not science but scientism. What makes it worse is that religious people clearly make the point that God exists outside of time and space is impenetrable to our scientific instruments. A verifiable god would be a man-invented god. But materialists insist on a 100% physical reality, so the onus is on them to have physical explanations, and when they don't, they insist it is physical anyway. Like I said... weird. Quite frankly I think the spiritual approach to ultimate reality makes a whole lot more sense that a scientific materialist approach, which makes no sense whatsoever, even though it insists that it is the only reality.
Materialist have no physical explanation for human behaviour but yet insist that it is physical anyway, even though they have no physical proof. That, my friend, is not science but scientism. If true, you'd be right. But the finer points escape you yet again - "materialists have no physical explanation for human behaviour, but assume/conclude that it is physical anyway..." The difference is critical - without knowing, we can draw tentative conclusions. What makes it worse is that religious people clearly make the point that God exists outside of time and space is impenetrable to our scientific instruments. A verifiable god would be a man-invented god. But materialists insist on a 100% physical reality, so the onus is on them to have physical explanations, and when they don't, they insist it is physical anyway. You're quite correct - theists should not waste time on proof, since a (scientifically) provable god is not what they believe in. You "believe", and *must* believe - there never can be proof. However, a materialist is free to 'believe' that proof will one day be delivered. "Not done yet" is a long way from "can't be done". ----------------------------- "I leave no turn un-stoned." - John Simmons, Nov 6 2001 -----------------------------