We could differ from him in any number pf dimensions which cannot discuss, because we have no understanding of anything outside of our observations. To assume that you can extrapolate any of God's behaviors from human behavior is ego-centrism. Before the color Blue enters the vocabulary of a language, the people who speak the language are unable to distinguish blue from green.

I'm not sure that's true mastertow. I mean, mostly the issue with criticism comes not from a lack of understanding of the person criticizing us, but rather their inability to comprehend us and our motivations. After all, I may fully understand why a person did something, that doesn't make me change my mind about how I feel about their actions except in very specific circumstances. After all if someone criticizes your work in a field you are in expert in and they aren't, even though you fully understand that the most likely reason for this criticism is that they are inexperienced does not somehow make your criticism subside, but rather enhances it as someone who has no idea how to do what your doing is assuming they know more.

"To assume that you can extrapolate any of God's behaviors from human behavior is ego-centrism."

Does a painting tell you nothing about the artist?

Oh my goodness. Big huge smart people words used to prove some exotic point

Oh joy, we've arrived at apologetics, which surpasses even politics for belligerent ignorance and pointless flame wars. =.= (This is not a commentary on religion generally.)

Is faith an admirable thing or is it a shocking lack of humility?

Depends--either, both, and neither are all possible outcomes. Faith, by itself, is an incredibly vague concept.

@WyattS14: Yes, I quite like intelligent conversation.

I enjoy understanding conversation that didn't need heightened vocabulary to be intelligent. (Why do I dig my graves too deep to get out of?)

Would you kindly point out to me the words you don't understand? It would be most helpful.

I can look them up, in fact the one word that was unfamiliar to me I already did look up.

Someone who is ego-centric, would, in more elementary terms, believe themselves to be the center of attention, correct? How are the words ego-centric and narcissistic different?

Yes, someone who is egocentric, is centered around their ego.

Okay. So would someone narcissistic be different than someone egocentric in that a narcissistic person is heavily interested in themselves and their self appearance, whole someone that is egocentric is obsessed with being the center of attention?

Also love how instead of saying "simpler" you say "more elementary" when complaining about people using words that are more complex than alternatives.

I mean they mean pretty much the same thing and go hand in hand. Synonyms are things ya know.

It would seem that you're continuing to bash.

But " elementary" is a pretty common term in that context, I believe. If I was trying to sound intelligent through using "complex alternatives" I probably wouldn't have asked what the difference between two similar words was.

If God doesn't exist, then there must be no soul either. If there is no soul, how do you explain your consciousness staying within you body?

If someone was to prove God existed, maybe they should do scientific studies on prayer or something, and see if it makes a noticeable difference.

There are miracles that people allegedly witness which would be huge evidence for them, but it's unfortunately untestable and unrepeatable so it falls outside the realm of science and proof.

God of the gaps needs to die, and looking for scientific proof for God’s existence is probably never going to work. God is by definition supernatural, and science deals with the natural.
The moment God stops being superfluous to the world, he stops being supernatural.

My understanding of God's nature assuming he exists is he has to be a kind, loving, and personal God. Assuming he brought about the existence of this universe, he's responsible for love, joy, happiness, personal relationships, etc. If God wasn't a manifestation of these ideals, I don't see how he could create them.

But then you got the problem of suffering. The most common explanation being that they are resulted from free will. And the metaphors of how darkness is an absence of light and not actually a thing, similar to how evil is a lack of good. I mean, ehh. I dunno. There are some problems with that to me. But I'll be damned if all the terrible things that have happened in the world are meaningless. I refuse to believe that.

I find any particular version of god contrary to common sense. Over the history of mankind, there have been religions of many kinds. Humans want to create meaning in their lives, so the farmers created gods of farming. The Inuit have multiple gods of winds and a god of polar bears. It clearly makes way more sense that humans created gods than vice versa. Plus, the biggest religious group makes up 31.5% of the current world and many of those people aren't real believers and the percentage is falling. That means that anyone who claims their religious is "right" is saying that 70% of other people are wrong, with zero proof. I see no reason to believe any of the big religions gods exist than to believe in Tornarssuk, Inuit polar bear god.

@ jmo: If God is incomprehensible, how can you believe in his existence? How can you even conceive of the existence of something which cannot be comprehended?

Getting back to Dipbro Brainbomb's particular situation, I will assume Brainbomb was in a personal crisis situation when he asked for God to send him a sign / signs presumably to help Brainbomb make difficult decisions, or maybe Brainbomb wanted confirmation from God that big decisions he had made were the right decisions.
Let's face it, most people aren't asking for God's help when life is peachy and good for them, usually it's when people are in trouble and strife when they summon God's help.
What's with this expectation that we can make a right mess of our lives then expect God to drop whatever he's doing and help us sort out our own problems ? I prefer God's who work in mysterious ways I cannot understand, for example, like a god who sends a speeding motorist past me to draw out the policeman hidden with his speed detection device, or a God that signals to me,without me even knowing it, the names of the one or two horses that'll win at long odds out of an eight or nine race day where favourites win about a third or slightly more of the races.
Most God's appear to be impotent in terms of resolving our domestic problems promptly. A witticism I might make is that there have been many more tears shed as a result of prayers that were answered ( because of the unexpected nature of God's answer to the prayer & what then occurs )/than the tears shed for prayers that were not answered.

Alternative to the above, God exists, but doesn't give a shit about your petty requests. Even the most signifigant of humans is but a cog in the great machine of the Universe.

This also answers the problem of Evil. God doesn't give a shit about what Hitler did, because it was insignifigant to the greater designs.

@"WolfsBane626 (100 D)
03:23 AM
+1
one of Newton's law was that matter can't me created or destroyed, but only changed. How was everything created according to scientists? The Big Bang. There was nothing and then something. That can't happen unless you have a supreme being to make the Big Bang."

Have ou read Lawernce Krauss' "Something from Nothing" ?

Its simple. God trolled me because I asked for signs and ive been a shitty person who deserves humorous answers that I wont find funny.

God I the ultimate troll, it's true. Don't get suckered in.