50 arguments for existence of God

Yes. Posting it will only increase the number of atheist.

I don't. I base my hypothesis on the basis of what facts exist at this point in time. The facts at this point are that no-one who is immortal currently exists. However, in absense of other opposing facts this hypothesis serves me well and is consistant with facts I do currently possess. If new facts present in contradiction present themselves that can not be sufficiently explained by rational thought, then my hypothesis would be invalid and I'd have to rethink. I'm not afraid of doing so... in fact, I welcome and eagerly await proof of a higher power.

I doubt it'll ever present itself to the world in a fashion that's more convincing than a side-show attraction like 'the face of the virgin mary in a payella in guadalupe'. :eek7

... and seeing how you brought it up, I'm curious why you're so fixated on abiogensis and evolution in general. The fervor which you persue that topic has the air of someone who's trying to convince himself as much as the next man, to my eyes.

I did not say that god MUST be our creation. I postulate that the knowledge we have of human nature and our growth and evolution (as a society, not physically, although there may be some nature along with the nurture) indicates that God is our creation, not the other way around. This is, again, consistant with the facts on hand, and although it yet leaves cognitive gaps, those are much smaller than the leaps of faith required by organized religion and their dogmas.

This is a very fine, and I believe artificial, distinction. The judeochristian god may have been supreme, but he also had a host of angels, cherubs, and vassals in various different shapes and sizes. This host took on aspects of the nature of god, probably the most important being the "evil" aspect. The veneration of the virgin mary as nearly as important as jesus is an example of the polytheistic overtones of christianity.

Take, for example, the ancient pre-incan monotheistic belief in Viracocha (also called Quetzalcoatl by the aztecs, later on, and incorporated into their pantheon). Viracocha had numerous aspects, being alternately venerated as the sun god, moon god, winged serpent god, and damn near everything else god. It was understood that they were all Viracocha though, regardless of the aspect. This ties in with incan creationism, which had Viracocha create 4 pairs of siblings to go forth and rule over the world (another version had Viracocha create a 'sun god' aspect of himself named Inti, who then brought enlightenment to people a la prometheus).

Monotheism happens to have a particular amount of flexibility in that regard, and can be moulded to allow the absorption of other religions by simply declaring "ah, your gods are just like our god, only wearing different masks... see, they all tie in together". I'm not aware of any religion at all which is strictly monotheistic with no other minions, as it would be pointless to have a god if it couldn't be put to use in explaining why "shit happens". I don't think that monotheism has any inherent advantage or additional 'truthfulness' about it, aside from being a somewhat more useful abstraction to keep the faithful on-message.

A semite giving birth to a blue-eyed kid sounds more like the result of a romp with a roman to me, btw, but that's neither here nor there. :Graucho

Sounds more like The Matrix

Regarding our physical life, how do you know that noone living today is immortal? In order to KNOW that for sure, you'd have to wait until everyone was dead, and I doubt the question would matter much at that point. You can't prove that I am NOT immortal until I'm dead. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that immortality exists.

My fervor is likely the direct result of the fact that I hold a minority worldview on GFY. One tends to defend one's position with more zeal when one is confronted by a greater number of those holding an opposing position.

I completely disagree with you on this. Our world is ripe with the handprints of our creator. Consider all the dependencies in nature. Life needs certain things to sustain itself: food, water, oxygen, a tolerable climate. Without these things we couldn't exist. Is it just a coincidence that we have all these things, or is it the result of a loving creator?

Angels (and minions) are NOT gods. They, like humans, were CREATED by God.

The implication by the CS Lewis quote and your additional clarifications of point imply that the impossible to obtain desires are what people call 'God'. My point is that I may desire immortality, but I have no interest in calling immortality god, nor life with him. If anything, immortality would be the first step on to fashioning myself as a god, in which case why would I need or desire another?

Fair enough. I fear that much of the world has moved on from this concept because, rightly or wrongly, the new abstraction fits our perceptions better. Having observed first hand evolution at work (bacterial experimentation et al) it's become easier to postulate a spontaneous biotic genesis of replicators from organic compounds than to try and justify "guy in sky with beard and odd hobbies" as the point of origin. You have an uphill battle on that topic.

If you perceive everything in the context of a religious lens, then you will be more likely to accept that which validates and discard that which invalidates the framework. If it's an abstraction that works for you, then there's no cognitive dissonance pushing you into a new framework. To whit, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Of course, I do the same. I view my world through a lens of rational thought. I personally feel that by taking my chances and filling in the blanks with extrapolation based on logic and intuition, that this framework will serve my purposes in this life better than that which requires proof to be lessor than faith because "proof denies faith".

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
-Bertrand Russell

Of course, as are most of the 'gods' in various pantheistic traditions the creations of their progenetors. The issue is not that they were 'genuine gods' or not, but rather that the judeochristian god had aspects of himself that could directly mapped onto the 'genuine gods' of other pantheons... as such, claiming that monotheism makes yahweh worship inherently different or superior is a tenuous claim to make, particularly when there are other ancient beliefs which are monotheistic.

At this point I'll go on the record saying that I do not believe in "God", but that I do not disbelieve either. If new facts come my way I'm fully prepared to re-evaluation my current position, but for the time being the only viable option for me is that of a secular skeptic.

I believe in one great power, that's all there is.... :thumbsup