Originally posted by Darfius
[b]Hence, we must be careful not to get the answer wrong, by being unreasonable, or by falsely weighing evidence. Wouldn't you agree with this?
Yes, I agree with that. Faith without reason is blind. But reason without faith is helpless. If one were to use the scientific method to attempt to understand God, one would come up woefully short. When I ...[text shortened]... t and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience."
Could you keep it brief? I'm not saying that I don't appreciate your passionate and extensive contributions, but I think a focused discussion, revolving around a small number of key points, would be more productive. Otherwise we'll have too much to discuss. Breadth is the enemy of depth.
You claim that God can't be understood scientifically, at least in all his particulars. That wouldn't surprise me. I agree with Wittgenstein (in the tradition of Kant and Schopenhauer) that the answer to the world lies outside the world.
However, I am skeptical that love, as you mean it, is the key that opens the metaphysical box, even though it may lessen the existential angst.
Clearly, you have experienced something profound, an inner experience that has revolutionized your life, which you previously regarded as unsatisfactory. You attribute your experiences to the action of a deity described in Christianity.
Yet, however psychological useful this revolution has been to you, it does not necessarily mean that the God you believe is more likely to exist. Many useful things are untrue. Even if believing in God were the only way to be happy (that would be a useful belief) that would not in itself suffice to make it true. It could be entirely false and essential.
Nor does the fact of your transformation constitute evidence that God, as understood in the Christian tradition, is the cause of your transformation. Your powerful experiences could have an alternative cause, of which you might not be aware.
For example, maybe it was adaptive for humans to evolve religious sensibilities after they became smart enough to realize they were going to die. However, being smart was too useful an adaptation to lose; so the the existential edge was taken off it by the subsequent evolution of religosity.
I don't know whether this (admittedly cursory) account is correct. However, I can't see why ANY subjective experience you, or anyone else, might have should rule it out. Hence, you subjective experiences don't necessarily point to the existence of God over at least one alternative hypothesis.
When you state things like the following...
I look in the mirror attempting to pierce my eyes and gaze into my very soul, I know deep down that we couldn't be the product of random processes. Only a benevolent, intelligent Creator would have, could have given us this precious gift of life.
...you appear to be using personal incredulity as an argument against the possibility that something might be true. But that's a risky form of argument.
For example, let's suppose that I also look deep into my soul, and I DO think it likely we could be the result of random processes. What would make your subjective view superior to mine?
This is too much writing for me! Can we pick ONE strand of argument and develop it, instead of spreading ourselves too wide?