[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Excluding scientific knowledge, are the "geniuses" of today posess any greater reasoning capacity than the "geniuses" of prior eras.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does evidence that the exodus never happened count as non scientific knowledge? Do statistics of how many religions there are (which is PROOF that the vast majority of people are wrong) count as non scientific knowledge? Etc.

[ QUOTE ]
2) To what extent have advancements in science provided any conclusive evidence for or against a divine being responsible for creation-- assuming that is a minimal definition of "God" shared by the predominate religions of our time.

[/ QUOTE ]

God(s) was often invented just to explain the unexplainable. Science shows we can explain almost everything.

Science has effectively refuted basically every major religion, whether it be through carbon dating, evolution, or even finding grammatical errors in the Qur'an.

So I would say yes, science has shed A LOT on the matter at hand, and there is more reason now than there ever has been before to not believe in god. Even most theists will admit that is true, especially those that disagree with evolution, and think evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume that the greater one's capacity to comprehend and explain the world in empirical terms, the LESS accepting they are of the propositions that some things defy comprehension or explanation in empirical terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it baffling that you use this as reason to believe that there probably is a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you understood my point in 1) My point was are we possessed of greater reasoning capacity as a species than we were 400 years ago? I suspect not.

2) There is definitely a lot of truth to your second point. I guess I don't see this necessarily as a refutation of God, rather than more of a chrystalization of what the concept must embody-- or a seperation of the unnecessary and false. It certainly should explode a lot of false notions about God in any rational person.

3) I didn't set out to prove God's existance or provide reasons for it. I was simply trying to point out where I saw problems with the persuasiveness of your point. I viewed it as a virtual truism that the MORE you can explain the less likely you are to believe in the unexplainable...(which coincides's perfectly with the statistics) however this very natural correlation sheds absolutely no light whatsoever on whether God exists. It is just a natural confidence that one derives from believing he has it all figured out.

As for myself, I struggle to know if there is a God, and what is his/her nature. I really don't presume to know. I can understand how some would unequivically believe in God, especially those who feel they have experienced contact firsthadn, and I can understand how some would be agnostic. Atheism makes no sense to me at all. But I don't think it is bad, just puzzling and sad.

I find Human's almost universal tendancy to believe in an external source for concepts of "higher" morality, and to attribute creation to a "being" to be fascinating. I am frustrated that I will never be able to undo the fact that these concepts are also very socialized, but I feel that they are innate as well. We seem wired to believe in God, and that certainly gives me reason to inquire further into understanding of why.