Serious Christians are hardly surprised that there's no 'solid proof' for a creator. It's primarily an internal, emotional realisation that rightly has no firm place in science. If you dont accept that, then pls go away until you do
what can be offered without proof, can be dismissed without proof. you say it's all an 'internal emotional' realisation far apart from science (i.e. evidence and rationality and logic and reason). surely god
wants us to love and believe in him? why then does he not provide tangible, irrefutable evidence to justify our belief?
don't give me the 'god is testing us', 'separate the men from the boys' 'free will' wank. in the old testament, the doubtful thomas was given the opportunity to touch the holes in the risen jesus' palms,
marvel! at his jewish musk and
bow down before! his salty rod of justice - why are we not extended the same courtesy? why must we simply 'realise' his presence while others are placed in the midst of it?
the christian god is omnipowerful, he is in all places at all times, surely he can pay all us non-believers a visit before he throws us into fiery damnation?
@garygaz
you claim that the christian bible/god is 'lulzy', and i assume you feel the same way about most other religion. yet you seem utterly convinced that something
must exist out there. this is primarily my beef with the agnostics. you do not have access to the 'feeling' that Iron has apparently recieved, but you claim that [insert god here] must exist because it is impossible to know everything>?
well why can't we know everything? 'knowing things', history teaches us, seems to be inversely proportionate to the society's secularism. what makes you think that science will not eventually unearth the universe's mysteries? we've had more technological and medicinal advancement in these last century alone than in the last two thousand plus years. religion has existed for so long because humans will always be scared of the dark and death and of other people, because our fight/flight reflexes are innate, and our frontal lobes were 'designed' too small. it was a superstition initially contrived to explain away the rising of the sun or the fall of rain or the passing of loved ones,
but now we are intelligent enough to understand these 'forces'.
organised religion once had aquinas and kierkegaard and descartes all the other great 'scholars' (though i must concede that they did believe that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around us, that humans were borne of dirt and ribs and that plants were green because it made them easier to look at; and thus knew less about nature and the cosmos than a modern child) now who do they have?
frail old men in chapels with beards to the floor and voices like mice. religion, people have realised, will not provide answers and they turn away, and they will keep turning away, from its bigotry and ignorance and corruption and repression - this is progress.
