Religion didn't spread morality, oh wait, yes it did.

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Kinjiro Tsukasa, Jun 8, 2005.

  1. rizal

    rizal Valued Member

    @Cuchulain
    actually, i'm trying to refute their point that faith is illogical and irrational.

    @all
    ever played or heard the game 'The Sims'?? How about 'Singles'?? both games are simulations of human interactions. each characters has their own thinking processes. in it we can make someone going through the process of living, loving, marriage, etc.

    now put in on the 'real' world. I ask the question of how we prove ourselves are not computer programs. I see none has answered the question that can be defined as a definite yes, we are programs or no, we are not programs.

    in 'real' world, we know that computer programs that can think for itself is possibility. People currently talked about AI and its advantages. Some people even get excited of the possibility of Artificial Conciousness. Now, if this is possible, is it possible that we are a very advanced versions of Artificial Conciousness?? Programmed by a nice, good, programmer named 'God'.

    I can hear Alexander yelling, 'You are delusional'. But on contrary, it can make perfect sense. We just assume that we are real. But are we? Just because the universe we lived in is so vast, it doesn't mean that to someone else, is small enough to fit inside a DVD-9 disc.

    I once played a game called "Black & White" in which I must trained an avatar (a giant cow) to make it helped those who believe in me (they prayed to me). After hours of training, i've decided to let It free from his leash and act on its own. I let my computer on for 24 hours and you know what happens? Nothing. No cataclysmic event, no armageddon. every disasters that happens are either resolved by itself and the people just go on with their lives or my avatar act on it. Conclusion? That I, as 'god', has put some rules in the game world that can make it survive on itself without me taking an action ergo i don't have to reveal myself.

    Now how's that correlate with reality. Well, simple. Just because God doesn't reveal himself in front of our collective noses doesn't mean God does not exist. In the programs examples, each characters/persons acts on its own. Inside the gameworld, with a few additional program lines, they will know they exist. They just don't know that they are just a program inside a game. They don't know that someone is watching them, playing with them, helping them in a mysterious ways.

    in other words, you cannot prove god since He/She/It is out of our own reality. God is unexplainable not because God is unexplainable but because he is not bound with the same rules and limitation as us. He might be a gamer, sitting in front of his computer, playing a 'real life 'Sims'". In fact, if God has some humor, he might be assume the identity of Alexander or psin or tekkengod, just to see what the characters in his 'game' will react.

    Q.E.D.
     
  2. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I CANNOT BELIEVE SOMEONE JUST MADE A B&W REFERANCE FOR RELIGION!!!!!

    That game had some of the worst AI in THE HISTORY OF GAMING!!!!

    I invested more than a few hours into that game as well. If YOU as the player stop acting, every thing goes completely to hell. The animal you train is directly acting in alliance with the type of Leash that it wears for the longest and how much length and freedom you give it. you can be nice to it and teach it to be kind, but if you give it 0 room to run and the agressive leash all day, it will still kill, slaughter and maim whatever is near you. and just like reality, it will usually KILL NON BELIEVERS!!!

    EDIT: oh and just an FYI. B&W 2 is due out in about 3 months.
     
  3. onyomi

    onyomi 差不多先生

    God is still not disproved

    Alexander, you have not disproved the existence of God, you have only shown that it is highly doubtful that one can use logic alone to prove the same. I never said I could prove the existence of God through logic alone--I agree it's a matter of faith, but neither can you logically rule out the possibility of a God existing--therefore you can't be an atheist. You can logically be an agnostic, but unless you can logically prove why God can't exist, you can't claim to be an atheist--at least not on the basis of logic alone. Only if you base your atheism on something other than logic--intuition/faith, etc., can you be an atheist, just like I can only be a theist with a certain amount of faith. That is not to say that there aren't logical clues which point to the existence of a god, but I never said I could prove it 100%, nor am I 100% certain, to be perfectly honest. I'm a little doubtful of any one who's 100% certain about almost anything...

    As for morality... without objective truth (i.e. 2+2always=4 and can never equal 5), there is no logical standard upon which to base values other than what you think is best. Unfortunately, what different people think is best varies greatly, therefore, without objective truth, any statement about the morality or immorality of anything must always be qualified by "in my opinion..." Of course, a society in which everyone just did what they thought would be kind and nice would probably still turn out pretty well, but I think this is only because of human beings' evolutionary development as community-oriented creatures--and sensibilities that produce strong conflict are bad for community and, therefore, survival. Nonetheless, without objective truth, a moral code of "whatever is in my best interest is moral" is equally valid as one that says "do unto others..." Therefore, we become unable to condemn Hitler's actions as absolutely immoral, since he only did what he thought was right--his idea of what was right simply deviated from the norm. Since I do believe in objective truth--something I'm 99.99% certain does exist, I can say "I believe murder to be objectively wrong."--and I think most people, whether they realize it or not, do believe in objective truth--a sign I think at least points in the direction of God existing. Another implication of my belief in objective truth is that God or something like him either exists or does not--he can't sort of exist. Therefore, although I am not and probably never will be 100% certain, my logic points more strongly in the direction of God existing rather than him not existing, so that's what I chose to believe for the time being.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2005
  4. Yokozuma

    Yokozuma New Member

    It looks like some "Scientific Atheists" (as they like to call themselves) are starting to see the light...hehe.

    World’s Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God, Cites Modern Science
    The best-known atheist of the last 50 years, Professor Antony Flew, made the announcement in a symposium on science and religion, that the discoveries of modern science have led him to accept the existence of God. Flew was joined in the symposium by leading Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder and noted Scottish thinker John Haldane.

    DALLAS, TX (PRWEB) December 15, 2004 -- The Institute for Metascientific Research (IMR) announced today that one of the best-known atheists in the academic world, Professor Antony Flew of the University of Reading, United Kingdom, has accepted the existence of God. In a symposium sponsored by the IMR at New York University earlier this year, Professor Flew stated that developments in modern science had led him to accept the action of an Intelligent Mind in the creation of the world. In “Has Science Discovered God?”, the recording of the symposium released today, Flew said his conclusion was influenced by developments in DNA research.

    “What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together,” he said. “The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence.”

    “It speaks very well of Professor Flew’s honesty,” observed America’s pre-eminent philosopher of religion Alvin Plantinga. “After all these years of opposing the idea of a Creator, he reverses his position on the basis of the evidence.”

    In 1955, Flew set the agenda for atheism with “Theology and Falsification,” a paper first presented at a meeting of the Oxford University Socratic Club chaired by C.S. Lewis. This work was reportedly the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last half century. Over the decades, he has authored 28 books and edited 12 others; at least 10 of his books were critiques of belief in God. He has also had debates and discussions with a wide range of religious believers. In one such debate, he declared: “We reject all transcendent supernatural systems, not because we’ve examined or could have examined each in turn, but because it does not seem to us that there is any good evidence in reason to postulate anything behind or beyond this natural universe.”

    Also participating in the NYU symposium were Dr. Gerald Schroeder from Israel, Dr. John Haldane from Scotland and Dr. Paul C. Vitz from New York. The MIT-trained Schroeder, who once taught at MIT in Boston and worked at the Weizmann Institute and Hebrew University laboratories in Israel, is the author of the best-selling book The Science of God. Haldane is Professor of Philosophy at St. Andrews University in Scotland and the author of numerous publications on culture, philosophy and religion. He delivered the Stanton Lectures at Cambridge University and is scheduled to deliver the prestigious Gifford Lectures at Aberdeen University in 2005. His widely publicized debate with J.J.C. Smart on the existence of God was published by the famous Oxford academic publisher Blackwell as Atheism and Theism. Vitz, professor of psychology at NYU, is the leading psychologist of religion in the U.S. His many books include Psychology as Religion and Faith of the Fatherless.

    In the course of the symposium, the participants address the origins of the universe, life, reproduction, consciousness, language and the mind while also discussing the existence of God, the problem of evil and the roots of atheism. Although many biologists have not considered the philosophical implications of DNA or reproduction, this dimension is of particular interest to professional philosophers Flew and Haldane. One theme of discussion is the thesis that of all of the great discoveries of modern science, the greatest is God.

    The IMR is providing a four-minute video news release on the symposium. Also available are two programs based on the symposium, the 50-minute “Has Science Discovered God?” and a 180-minute reference documentary on the existence of God, the message of modern science and the roots of atheism, along with a companion volume, The Wonder of the World – A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God.

    The narrator for the “Has Science Discovered God?” program is world-renowned journalist David Aikman, a senior and foreign correspondent for Time magazine for more than 23 years who has reported from five continents and 60 nations. He is currently editor-at-large for the Internet-based Newsroom.

    About the Institute for Metascientific Research
    The Institute for Metascientific Research is a debate and dialogue forum for the interface between science, philosophy and religion. Cosmos, Bios, Theos (Open Court), a book discussing these themes with 24 Nobel Prize winners, was edited under the aegis of the IMR. Its most recent production is the book The Wonder of the World – A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God (Tyr). The IMR had organized two previous symposia (including one at Yale University) with Professor Flew and other well-known atheists and theists and also hosted a special presentation by him on the 40th anniversary (1995) of the publication of “Theology and Falsification”.
     
  5. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP

    hmph......unexpected to say the least. but most of us knew about that.
    there is also much debate around his statements.

    personally i could care less. i know what i believe, i know why, and at the rate science is evolving and the rate at which the average IQ is rising, organized religion will be dead in 300 years or less.

    Theisim is a mental disorder, just like liberalisim.
     
  6. rizal

    rizal Valued Member

    aaah an opening, from another gamer nonetheless

    considering the AI, yes it is not best, but than again, neither do we (WW1, Holocaust, Soviet Union, the war on terrorism, yada yada yada).

    tekkengod just gave me an epiphany. He said, and i quote -- If YOU as the player stop acting, every thing goes completely to hell. The animal you train is directly acting in alliance with the type of Leash that it wears for the longest and how much length and freedom you give it. you can be nice to it and teach it to be kind, but if you give it 0 room to run and the agressive leash all day, it will still kill, slaughter and maim whatever is near you. and just like reality, it will usually KILL NON BELIEVERS!!! -- end quote

    what do we learn, class? That Candidate Tekkengod has shown us that based on the game analogy that even if we learn religion correctly but never exposed to another person standpoint and if we are taught that our only viewpoint is correct, we still are capable of wreaking our own destruction.

    seems quite similar to whom, class??? the examples are not that far :)

    that's where the morality entered. if i'm not wrong from the bible standpoint, the Crusades is wrong, right? and molesting children is wrong, right? From Koran standpoint, 9/11 is wrong, right? From the Hindus standpoint, the destruction of religious sites are wrong, right? From Bhuddist view, attacking one's neighbour to extend your territory is wrong, right? So how can people say that because the actions of individuals who embraced certain religions, religion is bad, when even on their religion scriptures the action is wrong???

    The funny thing is that, throughout this discussions, I find that atheists seems to forget history. Morality, the sense of good and evil are not inherent in ourselves, it is decided by the community, usually derived from religious law!! If religion is wrong, even paganism, then how could established moral standards is still correct? What is the basis?

    Should it suffice? Or should I brought the atheist's high standard of freedom and sense of justice? GE

    A parting shot: atheism is a delusion of grandeur, saying we are the best thing in world, all are below us and none is above. yeah, right, and Stalin is a saint.
     
  7. Bil Gee

    Bil Gee Thug

    They weren't. When religion set the agenda people where stoned for adultery, burned for blasphemy, homosexuals were imprisoned etc. Moral standards have shown a sharp improvement since they stopped taking guidance from religion



    Atheism = Communism?

    Top of the food chain most of the time, don't know any other "best" claims. They are ussually reserved for religious people who see man as made in God's image.
     
  8. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    My problem with that is, who programmed the programmer?

    To me its alot more probable that the program is a product of repetition.
    Why only 1 universe, 1 creator. What sort of narrow assumption is that.

    This could go on ad infinatum.

    It all a case of were we place our faith. It's not a question of right or wrong, when you remove religion from the picture.

    If you consider that it is possible for creation to come from void/vaccum. Then it is most definately repeatable - infinately. So chances are..sooner or later.. You may consider 'void' to be god. If so I doubt, it is conciouss - it's probably about as conciouss as a tree.

    Now if you were to say a race of super beings from another universe got so super advanced they created our universe for their own amusement, I consider that more probable likely than the conventional religious scenario ie. 1 creator - omnipotent being - us.
     
  9. Alexander

    Alexander Possibly insane.

    I'm not saying this is impossible. It is perfectly possible; just untestable. So we cannot ever know whether it is true or not. Just like the fact that I could be living with a minotaur that reveals himself to me and me alone - perfectly possible but I challenge you to test it and name the falsifying factor that would disprove my claim.

    No, you are not dillusional at all. You misunderstand the nature of my use of the phrase 'cogito, ergo sum'. You are in existence on the very basis you are thinking. What that existence is - whether artifical, whether you are a semi-independent part of a computer system that is controlled is, at this moment in time, irrelevant. You exist - though you cannot be sure of your nature.

    Again, this scenario is possible. I'd be quite stupid to dispute it.

    He would certainly have a sense of humour. Anyhow...

    O.k, lets say that an irrational belief is a claim that is not backed up by sufficient reason and has not a shred of evidence for it.

    You appear to be stating that it is rational to believe because there is the possibility that a god exists - though there is no evidence for it.

    The belief in something with insufficient reason and evidence is irrational - that is the only word for it.

    I am saying that since there is no evidence whatsoever to back up the evidence god exists then we can rationally take it that god does not exist.

    If you want to believe otherwise then you are welcome - but you cannot call it rational as it is not within reason's power to demonstrate the existence of god. Religion is an article of faith, not rationality. Any negative interpretation on that last statement is on your shoulders.

    Alexander
     
  10. rizal

    rizal Valued Member

    @geo
    back to my model.
    yes, the natural question if we know who programs us, who program the programmer?

    it all comes back to knowledge. If your creation finally discovers (REALLY discovers you) and asked this question, "What things you can't do?", you cannot answer "there is nothing i cannot do," because you knew you are incapable of certain things. You might lie, but if for instance you were asked to kill another god and resurrect it, you will be exposed.

    But God doesn't have this limitation.

    @psin
    so if your wife is sleeping with me, you will clap your hand and then compare notes about what position she prefers?

    and i'm sorry, but where in the bible that blasphemers must be burnt? by the believers nonetheless. The precedent does not compute this equation.

    and homosexuality? so sorry, but despite the 'lifestyle' defense, i still don't understand why people confused a procreation action into human social interaction.

    Well, if that is case, I have a case here where a guy ate corpses. Shall we say he likes the taste better???

    Atheism = Communism. Well, we talked about about organized beliefs (so sorry, pal, not organized religion). Atheism is an organized beliefs. It may be doesn't have bishops and imams......oh wait they do have 'Philosophers'. Does they count?....Yes, they are.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2005
  11. Alexander

    Alexander Possibly insane.

    *Applause* - that is correct. But you missed out "and reason" after the word 'logic'. And the point I am making is that until the evidence for god outweighs the evidence against it cannot be rational to believe. It is, however rational to assume that there is no god on the basis that the is no evidence for god's existence.

    I insist that, should you say that my atheism is irrational on the basis of 'insufficient reason for the existence of god does not rule of the possibility of god existing' then you must be a believer in ALL matters. Every ludicrous, irrational and far fetched claim I make should be treated with exactly the same credibility as Christianity.

    You claim it is an objective truth - the ultimate incentive. I'd counter this with the only real incentive to act morally comes from how you feel - your sentiments.

    Also in what way does belief in an objective moral truth point to the existence of god. Aristotle believed this objective truth was Eudaimonia - the state of happiness a person achieved through the perfection of moral character. You have not proven that an objective truth and religion are linked in any way.
     
  12. Alexander

    Alexander Possibly insane.

    Err... Are you serious? Atheism does not equate to communism. I happen to be intensly individualistic - bordering on Anarchy, and believe me, its hard to get further from communism than that.

    Incidentally, you are doing Atheism the ultimate honour of attributing all those who 'love wisdom' (the meaning of the word philosopher') to its cause

    If you are serious, are you from the deep south in America?
     
  13. Alexander

    Alexander Possibly insane.

    You seem to be unnaturally hard on Paganism. Unless you are an immense hypocrite you must treat it with identical level of plausability as Christianity.

    You seem interested in saying that morality does not derive from ourselves - why not? What reason is there as to why genocide is obviously bad? Why should anyone care? The answer is emotion - not reason.

    A parting Shot (I need to go to the bank): Religion is the ultimate oppressive force. Throughout the ages it has done nothing but supress mankind, chaining man down in the bondage of superstition and ignorance. It is a command to intellectuals: 'Don't think! Obey!'
     
  14. Bil Gee

    Bil Gee Thug

    I'll clap it around your head a few times.:)


    We were talking about religion not the bible, try to keep the goalposts in the same place

    Fortunately society has moved on and homophobia is no longer acceptable.



    Sorry but atheism is not an organised belief, it is simply an absence of belief. I am an atheist and have no interest in the writings of philosophers.
     
  15. medi

    medi Sadly Passed Away - RIP


    81 year old Philosophy professor thinks DNA too complicated, finds God. wow I guess he simply must be right.

    Fortunately one of the strengths of Science is the ability of scientists to not agree with each other without shaking the foundations of their beliefs. But since his change of heart wasn't actually based on any evidence there isn't much to disagree with.
     
  16. Bil Gee

    Bil Gee Thug

    [​IMG] ?
     
  17. rizal

    rizal Valued Member

    Blam Blam Zwing Zwing

    @ Alexander
    Hmmm that's weird. You agree that my model is possible but still said that to belief is irrational. How irrational and illogical is that? No one can prove graviton exist but scientist said it is there. No one ever prove black matter exist but the model is there. Other people might disagree but none said that it is irrational and illogical.

    And about Philosopher. Well, do you need glasses. I said 'Philosophers'. Jalalluddin Ar-Rumi is a philosopher but a religious person. Thomas Aquinas?

    Well if you are anarchic, why you quote so many alternatives in post #157? Because some of it you follow, even unconciously??

    and your appeal to emotion is, funnily, irrational. Emotion is a fickle thing, sometimes irrational (it's been proved, you know?). Why are you appealing to irrationality?

    about paganism: well, we are not discussing about who is the true religion isn't? We discuss between the existance of god (which paganism believes and you do not) and its effects of morality.

    Your shot missed completely (you seems out of shot): i wonder the priests, alims and the monks of the Mayans, the Romans, the Caliphates, the Medieval era would agree with you. Nothing, eh??? Ever heard Avicena? Mendel? The monk who create the bubbly? May ask how many school and colleges did atheisms built? Hmmmm.

    But I do recall that some people behead the head of Antoine Lavoisier. Hmmm.

    A chain shot: You said "You exist - though you cannot be sure of your nature.".
    So how can you are so sure that God does not exist? You don't even know your own nature.

    @psin
    ahhh the morality of psin. not sent me to the police but clap me a few times. So much of the sharp increase of morality (thus civility). :)

    and so sorry, bible is a religion and therefore valid response. Use another avenue of attack.

    i disagree with the use of word 'Homophobia'. People do not afraid Homosexuals. They just consider it morally wrong. Like people do not afraid of mad men. They just consider them uncapable to think the morality of their decisions.

    atheism is an absence of belief?? Strange I belief that atheists does not belief in God??????

    nice picture of you finally seeing your errors by the way.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2005
  18. medi

    medi Sadly Passed Away - RIP


    A phobia is more correctly defined as 'revulsion' than 'fear'. That line is often used by Homophobics to deny homophobia by claiming "I'm not 'homophobic', I just hate them."
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2005
  19. Alexander

    Alexander Possibly insane.

    It is irrational because there is not sufficient reason.

    The existence of black holes: Scientists theorise they exist as an explanation for, and argue they do exist by, measuring curvature of light waves. The falsifying factor, when testing this theory, would be if the lightwaves did not behave as the scientists predicted they would - which, to the best of my knowledge, is not happening. There appears to be sufficient reason in this case.

    The existence of gravity: Scientists are a bit stumped by this Newtonian theory as for it to work 90% of the matter in the Universe is missing (and has been labelled 'dark matter'). However empirical evidence seems to give it a shred of credibility. If we were to test gravity the falsifying factor would be if, when we dropped something, it did not fall but stayed where it was or flew off in another direction. So far this has not happened. There appears to be sufficient reason in this case. Gravity is, therefore, a rational assumption to make.

    The existence of the minotaur who lives with, but reveals himself only to, me: There is no evidence against it. There is no possible factor that can falsify it. There is no sufficient reason to believe it. It is therefore irrational to believe it.

    The existence of a god: There is no evidence against it. There is no possible factor that can falsify it. There is no sufficient reason to believe it. It is therefore irrational to believe it.

    Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, James, Marcel etc... Yes, many philosophers are (or in the above cases 'were') religious. Hence I was a bit confused as to why you seemed to be saying that philosophers were the 'priests' of Atheism.

    I quote many alternatives to show that religious-based moral theorys are in the minority in a sea of those that require no religious base to them - only a priori reasoning or sentiment. Some of it I follow, consciously. However I maintain that morality is an artificial descriptive label impressed by humanity upon actions.

    Incidentally, 'bordering on anarchy' and 'anarchic' do not equate. I do not advocate the destruction of political authority. I advocate its minimization.

    Can you justify an motivation to act morally on the grounds of reason? If you can, you are a genius and I would ask you to share the theory with me for the very reason that suddenly moral theories such as Deontology become, in my eyes, credible.

    David Hume: "Take any action allow'd to be vicious... Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. You can never find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, toward this action. Here is a matter of fact; but 'tis the object of feeling, not reason."

    Let us do as Hume asked us to and take any action we think is immoral (mass genocide) and find a reason why it is immoral. We are finding a reason why we should care; why we should act morally. You can't. Reason is not sufficient. It is a tool. Asking reason what is moral is like asking a spanner how to fix an engine. We can however use reason to find the source of morality. There is no explanation as to why something is considered morally repugnant until we turn into our heart and find that we consider it abhorrant - but this is the object of sentiment, and not reason.

    Yep.

    99% in communist countries after their respective revolutions for starters, though I fail to see the relevance of this point. New theories (even from religious people such as Descartes) were still frowned upon if they contained even a hint of heresy.

    My shot was aimed at the fact that the Church, for years, has supressed scientific aims and still does protest whenever a scientist wishes to discover something that bears a threat to religious doctine the church has reacted with fear. It still does. The church argues that mankind should bow its head in submission to a deity for which there is no proof - of reason or perception - exists. Religion is in decline in the West because of the fact that people, for the first time in centuries, are thinking and coming up with credible theories about facts of life. Ra is no longer considered the Sun - the sun is considered a big ball of fiery gas whic the earth orbits (not the other way around). Furthermore scientists are no longer being persecuted for it.

    Religion grew out of ignorance, and ignorance is the only way to maintain the authority of priests. If ignorance recedes, relgion is in trouble. Hence the decline of religious faith in Western Europe.

    You have clearly mis-understood my entire argument. Answer the following questions and then, perhaps you may be halfway:
    1) Where is the source of knowledge? (Where is it from where you derive all you know?)
    2) What is the only thing that is beyond reasonable doubt?
    3) If there is no evidence toward something, does this make it true?
    4) If it is impossible to concieve of a falsifying factor for an empirical experiment on a claim, is that claim true?
    5) If there is no reason to believe something, does that mean that believing it is rational?
    6) If there is no evidence in favour of a claim that cannot be falsified, does this make believing it rational?
    7) Can reason ever act as an incentive for action?
     
  20. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    By the same logic, it is irrational to state that there isn't a God at all, as no evidence suggests it. There's evidence that suggests that some people's version of God might be flawed, but not all possible Gods.

    So Science gives no reason to believe (except for some phenomena that are yet to be explained, perhaps) and no real reason to disbelieve (except for maybe that there's no "need" for God to explain the world).

    So any REAL reason to believe/disbelieve is going to come from a person's own experience, which is unique to them. If you have no "experience" of God except through theistic theories that sometime clash with science, then I guess you have no reason to believe.
     

Share This Page