God and the social construction of reality

[M30USA]

Science cannot prove the existence of god. It already disproves the existence of the god or gods of popular belief by revealing systems of cause and effect that explain things attributed to a god or gods in the ancient world like creation, the weather, et al. In it's ultimate practice it can come to a place where it may run out of evidence of cause and effect and come to a point where the conclusion can be that something outside of the nature we all live within played some role in creating or causing the nature we DO know, but it is never science's place to call that "god" or conclude it to be "the" god or evidence of a single "super-nature". Science is flawed if it runs around looking to proclaim a god being involved--that is not science, it is religious bias.

 

Belief in "god" is anthropocentric--meaning human beings see themselves so central to the universe that the universe is a provision for them and they so important that the supposed creator personally knows of the existence of people and people have after-lives because they are too important to just end. The evidence against that is exposed before our eyes. The population of the Earth was reduced to a few thousand when the last super volcano erupted and could have caused us to go extinct. An asteroid, a gamma ray burst, a solar storm, and even our own creation of nuclear and biological weapons show that we are not important at all to the universe, it doesn't cease to exist because we do, it had existed for billions of years before we evolved and will continue on it's own trajectory long after we burn up. There has never been in interceding god who has suspended the laws of physics and nature to grant a personal favor nor will there ever be and everything will break down if begging a deity for a personal customization of reality actually worked.

 

So let me paraphrase what you are saying:

 

Because we know more than the ancients did about weather, science, etc, this means that these phenomenon were not caused by a god or influenced by any god?

 

If there is a God--which you say has been disproven--then he surely created the very sciences as we know them, and if he chose to send a flood for example, then surely there would be physical explanations for them--and rightly so. These physical explanations do not disprove his existence. If anything they support it.

[writergal]

Excuse me, thread starter here. What I'd really like to see are some names of scientists, researchers, philosophers, theologians who argue that science can or can't prove the existence of God.

 

It's one thing to argue yes or no, but without any supporting evidence it's just your opinion and I'm looking for more than just an opinion. I'd like some references so I don't have to Google it. If all else fails with this thread, I'll just go to my grad program's science department and ask one of the professors for help.

 

I'm throwing my hands up in the air, waving them like I just don't care...because this thread is going nowhere. *sound of door closing.*

[M30USA]

Excuse me, thread starter here. What I'd really like to see are some names of scientists, researchers, philosophers, theologians who argue that science can or can't prove the existence of God.

 

It's one thing to argue yes or no, but without any supporting evidence it's just your opinion and I'm looking for more than just an opinion. I'd like some references so I don't have to Google it. If all else fails with this thread, I'll just go to my grad program's science department and ask one of the professors for help.

 

I'm throwing my hands up in the air, waving them like I just don't care...because this thread is going nowhere. *sound of door closing.*

 

Albert Einstein believed in God.

 

So did Charles Darwin.

 

So did Isaac Newton.

 

Hope those references are enough.

[writergal]

Albert Einstein believed in God.

 

So did Charles Darwin.

 

So did Isaac Newton.

 

Hope those references are enough.

 

I already knew those references. But thanks for trying. I think I'm going to go read up on the String Theory (oh yeah) and Hawking's most recent book along with some other physicists.

 

I met Dr. John Polkinghorne who is a physicist (and theologian) in 1997 when I was in England for the month of January. I went to Oxford and learned that he was speaking at one of the colleges. He gave an interesting lecture on how scientific methods fail to prove the existence of God. Need I go on gentlemen?

 

I need something more than just a list of names. I need or want a discussion with those names and their theories explained or mentioned to me so that I can use that as a jumping off point for my own exploration to the answer to this question, because I'd like to find the answer somewhere...

[M30USA]

I already knew those references. But thanks for trying. I think I'm going to go read up on the String Theory (oh yeah) and Hawking's most recent book along with some other physicists.

 

I met Dr. John Polkinghorne who is a physicist (and theologian) in 1997 when I was in England for the month of January. I went to Oxford and learned that he was speaking at one of the colleges. He gave an interesting lecture on how scientific methods fail to prove the existence of God. Need I go on gentlemen?

 

I need something more than just a list of names. I need or want a discussion with those names and their theories explained or mentioned to me so that I can use that as a jumping off point for my own exploration to the answer to this question, because I'd like to find the answer somewhere...

 

What exactly are you looking for:

1) Proof of God's existence or lack of existence

2) Whether or not #1 can even be determined

[writergal]

What exactly are you looking for:

1) Proof of God's existence or lack of existence

2) Whether or not #1 can even be determined

 

Thank you for asking. What I'm interested in searching for are books, articles, links to video speeches of #1, and I think #2 is just a sub-point of #1. Maybe I should have been more specific with my OP question as far as asking for names and resources of physicists and philosophers who have explored this topic. I read some Immanual Kant because someone suggested it, but it wasn't that helpful to me.

[M30USA]

Thank you for asking. What I'm interested in searching for are books, articles, links to video speeches of #1, and I think #2 is just a sub-point of #1. Maybe I should have been more specific with my OP question as far as asking for names and resources of physicists and philosophers who have explored this topic. I read some Immanual Kant because someone suggested it, but it wasn't that helpful to me.

 

Ah, got it.

 

Since I realized that God's existence or non-existence CANNOT be determined with reason or the scientific method, I haven't bothered any longer with #1. I spent some time getting into #1 until I realized it was a dead end. Ultimately, as much as scientists hate to admit it, you are dealing with a spiritual issue. Or if you don't like the word spiritual, substitute it with the phrase "matter of the will". If you WILL to not see God, you will not see him. If you WILL to seek him, you will find him.

 

Blaise Pascal, French mathematician of the 1600s, correctly state: "'In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadow for those who don't."

 

You are better off asking yourself deep down in all truthfulness: WHAT DO I WANT TO BELIEVE? Then go from there. (Note: I am not promoting wishful thinking. I am just getting you to realize that on this issue which is beyond proof, it really comes down to the will. I have a suspicion, too, that God wanted it this way. That's my little opinion, lol.)

[writergal]

Ah, got it.

 

Since I realized that God's existence or non-existence CANNOT be determined with reason or the scientific method, I haven't bothered any longer with #1. I spent some time getting into #1 until I realized it was a dead end. Ultimately, as much as scientists hate to admit it, you are dealing with a spiritual issue. Or if you don't like the word spiritual, substitute it with the phrase "matter of the will". If you WILL to not see God, you will not see him. If you WILL to seek him, you will find him.

 

Blaise Pascal, French mathematician of the 1600s, correctly state: "'In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadow for those who don't."

 

You are better off asking yourself deep down in all truthfulness: WHAT DO I WANT TO BELIEVE? Then go from there. (Note: I am not promoting wishful thinking. I am just getting you to realize that on this issue which is beyond proof, it really comes down to the will. I have a suspicion, too, that God wanted it this way. That's my little opinion, lol.)

 

Well I thank ye for your little opinion. What I want to believe is that science has the answers - all the answers and that religion and theology is just a distraction, a mental filter, a spiritual lens used to give meaning to the unknown. Yet science offers hard, physical, tangible proof within its answers. Yes it changes but you can see the proof.

 

I don't believe in religion anymore because you can't prove god's existence with anything but logical arguments and references to religious documents all created by and for people. So far, no deity or spirit has actually shown itself to exist. Yes, people say they exist and claim to have seen them but most of the time those are fraudulent claims because the scientific reality is...the human body is it. This is it. The soul is a clump of tissue in the brain. The soul does not exist in an ethereal plane. That is what I believe. I believe in what I can see, hear, taste, touch and feel along with reasoning and logic. But reasoning and logic alone are not enough to satisfy me. Author Jorge Luis Borges tackles the question of God's existence in his book, The Library of Babel as though the universe is a giant library full of many rooms, and each room its own culture of humans with their own traditions, languages, etc. Very fascinating viewpoint. He even predicts the invention of computer technology like the internet in the story and talks about science's role in explaining the mysteries of the universe.

 

If it is a "matter of will" then I need to seek resources that support my belief that the universe and life was not created by one deity but by intelligent and scientific design. That everything alive on earth is the result of physics and science and that the spirituality people see in nature is actually just their own chosen mental filter, because of their belief system. I am not a spiritual person in the religious sense. I am a believer in cause and effect and design. I was raised in a monotheistic home in a religion that told me I was already evil and the only way to save my soul was to submit my will to a higher power. Uh, no thanks. I choose science over religion.

Edited June 24, 2012 by writergal

[TheFinalWord]

Excuse me, thread starter here. What I'd really like to see are some names of scientists, researchers, philosophers, theologians who argue that science can or can't prove the existence of God.

 

It's one thing to argue yes or no, but without any supporting evidence it's just your opinion and I'm looking for more than just an opinion. I'd like some references so I don't have to Google it. If all else fails with this thread, I'll just go to my grad program's science department and ask one of the professors for help.

 

I'm throwing my hands up in the air, waving them like I just don't care...because this thread is going nowhere. *sound of door closing.*

 

Hi Writergal,

 

Interesting thread!

 

I think you would like Dr. William Lane Craig. I have a few of his books. Some of them can get really deep. One chapter took about 25 hours to digest. haha He's a philosopher. If you search him on youtube you can watch his debates with famous athiests like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. He also refutes Dawkins' books.

 

From the cosmological perspective, Dr. Hugh Ross is good. He's an astrophysicist. Some of his books are also very deep and require a bit of a scientific background to follow. But I think if you are wanting to really dig in, he'd be your best bet for the cosmological metaphysical arguments for God.

[M30USA]

Writergal,

 

Consider what Einstein said:

 

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

 

I don't think it's wise, based on what Einstein said, to just drop religion (true religion) altogether and hold onto science alone.

[M30USA]

Hi Writergal,

 

Interesting thread!

 

I think you would like Dr. William Lane Craig. I have a few of his books. Some of them can get really deep. One chapter took about 25 hours to digest. haha He's a philosopher. If you search him on youtube you can watch his debates with famous athiests like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. He also refutes Dawkins' books.

 

From the cosmological perspective, Dr. Hugh Ross is good. He's an astrophysicist. Some of his books are also very deep and require a bit of a scientific background to follow. But I think if you are wanting to really dig in, he'd be your best bet for the cosmological metaphysical arguments for God.

 

Dr. William L. Craig is THE MAN!

[TheFinalWord]

Hi Writergal,

 

If you search youtube..."The Thoughts of William Lane Craig"

 

I think will give you a good idea of his stances, unless you prefer a debate type format.

 

Best of luck with your search!

[writergal]

Thanks you two. I appreciate the references. I will definitely dig in.

 

I like the Einstein quote. I get the dilemma of how you need both otherwise you only have half the answer or information. My mother is an Einstein-fan and has many of his books. I'll have to dig through her collection and see if any resonate with me.

 

I own Roger Penrose's book The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" because I got to do a radio interview with him back in 2004 when the book was published. You're thinking, "why on earth would a liberal arts degree graduate interview a well known physicist about his bestselling book on the laws of the universe? Well, before grad school I cohosted a weekly literary arts community radio program. Obviously I would have quoted his book earlier in this thread had I read all 1050 pages of it. But nope. Just skimmed it 8 years ago.

 

Maybe I'm thinking too narrowly just expecting science to have all the answers. But religion and I aren't on speaking terms at the moment. I have lost my faith in faith and am leaning on science right now for support of my changing views.

[TheFinalWord]

Thanks you two. I appreciate the references. I will definitely dig in.

 

Maybe I'm thinking too narrowly just expecting science to have all the answers. But religion and I aren't on speaking terms at the moment. I have lost my faith in faith and am leaning on science right now for support of my changing views.

 

Nothing wrong with that WriterGirl! I think it is healthy to challenge everything. One thing I would try is just ask God to show you. Not trying to tell you what to do, but from my experience, the greatest evidence for God for me, isn't the scientific or philosophical arguments. Those just confirm it for me and I guess provide a level of comfort. Instead, it's my personal experiences with God.

 

I agree with Pascal when he said that God has provided evidence such that those who do not want to believe will not find reason to and that those who do want to believe will. He argues against a coercive God and sufficient evidence to satisfy our personal desires. After all, if we had 100% proof, we wouldn't need faith. Which, coincidentally, is the only thing that pleases God.

 

In general though, I think we all have periods of doubt. There are still many issues that I can't fully reconcile.

 

"Every time God removes one of my doubts, he gives me three more I didn't know I had" - Hugh Ross

 

Happy reading and all the best on your journey

[TheFinalWord]

Nobody in their right mind would like Craig. He is an apologist for Biblical genocide, and really has no regard for truth.

 

He's a sophist.

 

Thanks for commenting on my mental state lol I'm glad to see your training in psychiatry now extends to making diagnoses over the internet!

 

Have you actually read his book, Reasonable Faith? Or are you just regurgitating atheist websites?

[BetheButterfly]

I recall an interview with the Dalai Lama who, when asked what he would do if science could demonstrate that reincarnation was false, answered with almost no hesitation "I'd stop believing in it".

 

I was struck by the level of honesty and openness that I had simply never encountered from any of the Abrahamic religions our culture is so immersed in. From what I have gathered since, his opinion is mostly shared.

 

You could do far, far worse than Buddhism.

 

I don't know very much about Buddhism. I think one of the things that really has me very attracted to Abrahamic beliefs in God is history, and the reality of the existence of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel).

 

Even though I'm not Jewish, I grew up hearing the historic accounts of the children of Israel. Because belief in God was (and for some, still is) an incredibly important part of their history and culture, it is surprising to me the idea that some people believe belief in God and science do not coincide. Both can and do coincide just fine when there is freedom.

 

Even though long time ago, in the Law that God gave to Moses for the children of Israel, there was very little freedom, I do believe that when Jesus came, he "opened the doors" as you could say, for freedom to investigate and explore.

 

The problems in "Christanity" are not due to belief in God, but rather are due to people killing/restricting others, of selfishness, greed, hate, lust, pride... mere mortal vices that hurt people.

 

However, what is vital is that Jesus did not teach his followers to persecute. He taught love. Love coincides very well with science, because even though one can't see love, one can see the effects of love!

 

Just like the wind, the effects of love can be clearly diagnosed, and it makes me happy that many people who believe in God have and still do contribute greatly to science, to human rights, and to making the earth a better place! Even though it is true that one does not need to believe in God in order to do the above, or love people or studying, it is true that belief in God does not impede scientific discoveries. The Wright brothers are just 2 of many believers in God who had no problem studying science, inventing with the knowledge they learned, and believing in God at the same time! Martin Luther King Jr. is one man of many believers in God who had no problem helping his people, teaching about love and mutual respect, and believing in God at the same time!

Edited June 25, 2012 by BetheButterfly

[TheFinalWord]

You're welcome.

 

He has written a lot of books and published a lot of papers and articles. I have read a few, and watched a few of his debates as well. My observations on Craig come from his own words, not what anybody else has said about him.

 

His work is wholly unremarkable, bordering on mediocre. He draws hardly any citations from other academics, which is reasonably accurate measure of how regarded he is by his peers. He has only achieved mild celebrity status among evangelicals because of his high-school debate team style tactics and cunning sophistry in formal debates.

 

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Your claim that he isn't reputable in academics shows you haven't done any study outside of the internet. As such, I hope you won't be disappointed when I say your opinions don't seem very objective given the mudslinging you dished out. Since your study of Craig is limited to the internet, I'll point you to Youtube: Atheist Myth #3: "William Lane Craig is not taken seriously by his Academic Peers"

 

Since you haven't actually read any of his books I hope you'll understand when I say that I believe your comment that he supports genocide is an ad hominem at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Edited June 25, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[writergal]

I don't know very much about Buddhism. I think one of the things that really has me very attracted to Abrahamic beliefs in God is history, and the reality of the existence of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel).

 

Even though I'm not Jewish, I grew up hearing the historic accounts of the children of Israel. Because belief in God was (and for some, still is) an incredibly important part of their history and culture, it is surprising to me the idea that some people believe belief in God and science do not coincide. Both can and do coincide just fine when there is freedom.

 

Even though long time ago, in the Law that God gave to Moses for the children of Israel, there was very little freedom, I do believe that when Jesus came, he "opened the doors" as you could say, for freedom to investigate and explore.

 

The problems in "Christanity" are not due to belief in God, but rather are due to people killing/restricting others, of selfishness, greed, hate, lust, pride... mere mortal vices that hurt people.

 

However, what is vital is that Jesus did not teach his followers to persecute. He taught love. Love coincides very well with science, because even though one can't see love, one can see the effects of love!

 

Just like the wind, the effects of love can be clearly diagnosed, and it makes me happy that many people who believe in God have and still do contribute greatly to science, to human rights, and to making the earth a better place! Even though it is true that one does not need to believe in God in order to do the above, or love people or studying, it is true that belief in God does not impede scientific discoveries. The Wright brothers are just 2 of many believers in God who had no problem studying science, inventing with the knowledge they learned, and believing in God at the same time! Martin Luther King Jr. is one man of many believers in God who had no problem helping his people, teaching about love and mutual respect, and believing in God at the same time!

 

Now you're prosethelytizing about love and believing in God (whether you will admit to that or not). For proof? See your last paragraph. None of what you wrote directly addressed my OP question btw. Mentioning the Wright Brothers (who were pilots not scientists) and Martin Luther King Jr (who was not a scientist but a preacher fyi). I don't know whether to laugh or sigh as your post clearly doesn't address my OP question, as to whether science can or cannot prove the existence of God. Others have directly responded to it whereas you have rambled about scripture, lack of knowledge of Buddhism, god and love, a famous preacher and brothers who were pilots. You write as though you speak for the Wright Brothers "who had no problem studying science...and believing in God" and you write as though you speak for Martin Luther King Jr. If you're not going to directly answer a question in a thread, then please don't post. If you had read this entire thread you would have noted that I stated clearly that I did not want people coming here to ramble on as you have about god and love and quote biblical scriptures because that's completely irrelevant to my question. You strike me as someone who has a very narrow view of the world, the way you respond to my thread and other threads always having to cite god, quote bible scriptures etc., and preach (although you deny it when you do). I think you really should find a Bible or Christian forum/discussion board that would serve you better.

Edited June 25, 2012 by writergal

[wuggle]

If religion and God are social constructions, then why do civilizations/people believe and worship these social constructions? If we create our own reality, how can people believe in a deity that doesn't really exist -- except in one's imagination?

 

I think people believe in a deity that doesn't exist for many reasons, including:-

 

a) because that was the belief that was handed down to us by our parents (sad that they often didn't seem to question this belief themselves or at least foster a spirit of questioning in us, I always felt I was fighting my parents in my critical analysis, which made it worse)

 

b) it's easier to accept a belief, especially one that has such social acceptance, rather than ask the questions that seem to have no answer at all and are in danger of driving the person whe asks them, mad.

 

I was raised Roman Catholic...

 

Ditto. I decided many years ago that the faith I was 'brought up with' was probably complete fabrication. I too cannot accept most of the central beliefs in catholicism\christianty (god, god as my father, satan, hell etc) though quite willing to accept that a bloke called Jesus was about and was a decent enough (though deluded) chap.

 

So, what do I do with all the time and energy I invested towards my Catholic faith, if it no longer suits me?

 

Accept that it has passed and revel in the fact that at least you are not wasting any more time 'accepting' that which your intellect tells you is untrue. If you find a 'truth' in Buddism, enjoy it, if you grow out of that, cool as long as you don't lie to yourself. I have belived many things in my life that I don't now believe.

 

Crisis of faith here.

 

I think the crisis of faith may well be a good thing, the start of a period of reflection. From my own personal experience, over 30 years spent looking for an answer, which all my investigations tell me I will never find. My latest questioning does not even answer the question whether there is indeed an objective reason to reality, is all subjective ? are we defining our own existence as we go along ?

 

I suppose I would rather keep looking for a truth which doesn't exist than accept one that I 'know' to be untrue, no matter how comforting, even if it drives me mad.

 

Good luck with your own search for truth, if you find it let me know.

[writergal]

I think people believe in a deity that doesn't exist for many reasons, including:-

 

a) because that was the belief that was handed down to us by our parents (sad that they often didn't seem to question this belief themselves or at least foster a spirit of questioning in us, I always felt I was fighting my parents in my critical analysis, which made it worse)

 

b) it's easier to accept a belief, especially one that has such social acceptance, rather than ask the questions that seem to have no answer at all and are in danger of driving the person whe asks them, mad.

 

 

 

Ditto. I decided many years ago that the faith I was 'brought up with' was probably complete fabrication. I too cannot accept most of the central beliefs in catholicism\christianty (god, god as my father, satan, hell etc) though quite willing to accept that a bloke called Jesus was about and was a decent enough (though deluded) chap.

 

 

 

Accept that it has passed and revel in the fact that at least you are not wasting any more time 'accepting' that which your intellect tells you is untrue. If you find a 'truth' in Buddism, enjoy it, if you grow out of that, cool as long as you don't lie to yourself. I have belived many things in my life that I don't now believe.

 

 

 

I think the crisis of faith may well be a good thing, the start of a period of reflection. From my own personal experience, over 30 years spent looking for an answer, which all my investigations tell me I will never find. My latest questioning does not even answer the question whether there is indeed an objective reason to reality, is all subjective ? are we defining our own existence as we go along ?

 

I suppose I would rather keep looking for a truth which doesn't exist than accept one that I 'know' to be untrue, no matter how comforting, even if it drives me mad.

 

Good luck with your own search for truth, if you find it let me know.

 

Thank you Wuggle. Hah. Don't know if I'll find it but my search has begun. I'm in a long line behind the rest of the human race, who are searching for answers too.

 

I believe astrophysics and physics will be helpful to me in my search. If I stumble across a philosopher who supports science I will add that to the resources I find support my "quest."

[M30USA]

Wuggle,

 

The problem with the first point of your last post is there are too many examples of people converting to Christianity who were not raised up to believe so. In some cases these people were even vehemently opposed to Christianity. The best example is the Apostle Paul. He was thoroughly schooled in the Jewish religion and was involved with arresting and sentencing to death thousands of Christians. Then all of a sudden he saw, along with several others, a blinding light in the sky (ie, another UFO incident in case you didn't make the connection) and next thing he knows, he's instantly converted and is following orders which he received directly from Christ--who spoke from the blinding light in the sky and referred to himself as so.

[M30USA]

In continuation of my last post, if you think a voice speaking to someone from the sky is absolutely ridiculous, you might want to reconsider.

 

Do you know who Dennis Kucinich is?

 

DENNIS KUCINICH UFO Sighting Presenditial Debate - YouTube

[writergal]

*blows debate whistle* no arguing, k M30USA. lol. You and Wuggle and QuickJoe can go debate religion in another thread.

[BetheButterfly]

Wuggle,

 

The problem with the first point of your last post is there are too many examples of people converting to Christianity who were not raised up to believe so. In some cases these people were even vehemently opposed to Christianity. The best example is the Apostle Paul. He was thoroughly schooled in the Jewish religion and was involved with arresting and sentencing to death thousands of Christians. Then all of a sudden he saw, along with several others, a blinding light in the sky (ie, another UFO incident in case you didn't make the connection) and next thing he knows, he's instantly converted and is following orders which he received directly from Christ--who spoke from the blinding light in the sky and referred to himself as so.

 

That has always struck me as being highly ironic, that Paul,who used to hate Christians, actually became a Christian.

 

This is a very good point you wrote: " there are too many examples of people converting to Christianity who were not raised up to believe so. In some cases these people were even vehemently opposed to Christianity."

 

One of my friends is an ex-Muslim, who grew up in Pakistan in a Muslim environment, and when he converted to Christianity, he risked his life. He moved to the UK, then to the USA, one reason being for his safety.

 

Back to Paul, I don't understand about the UFO reference though? Is that just a simile? I very much doubt Jesus spoke to him through a UFO.

Edited June 26, 2012 by BetheButterfly

[BetheButterfly]

Now you're prosethelytizing about love and believing in God (whether you will admit to that or not). For proof? See your last paragraph. None of what you wrote directly addressed my OP question btw. Mentioning the Wright Brothers (who were pilots not scientists) and Martin Luther King Jr (who was not a scientist but a preacher fyi). I don't know whether to laugh or sigh as your post clearly doesn't address my OP question, as to whether science can or cannot prove the existence of God. Others have directly responded to it whereas you have rambled about scripture, lack of knowledge of Buddhism, god and love, a famous preacher and brothers who were pilots. You write as though you speak for the Wright Brothers "who had no problem studying science...and believing in God" and you write as though you speak for Martin Luther King Jr. If you're not going to directly answer a question in a thread, then please don't post. If you had read this entire thread you would have noted that I stated clearly that I did not want people coming here to ramble on as you have about god and love and quote biblical scriptures because that's completely irrelevant to my question. You strike me as someone who has a very narrow view of the world, the way you respond to my thread and other threads always having to cite god, quote bible scriptures etc., and preach (although you deny it when you do). I think you really should find a Bible or Christian forum/discussion board that would serve you better.

 

You are free to formulate whatever opinion you have of me that you so desire. As for me, I am not your judge. I was addressing a post by QuickJoe, but I will go see what your question is in order to answer it.