Only someone who knew everything there is to know would be able to answer that questions and if there was someone who knew everything there is to know wouldn't that person be God?

Haven't heard from you in a while, Martin. glad to see you still come by from time to time.

I don't believe there is any physical evidence that firmly proves or disproves the existence of a god, though I think if we were to compare the "ayes" and "nays" of God's existence, as indicated by evidence, there would be more "ayes" than "nays". Mostly due to the basic principle that existence itself defies the laws of physics. If energy (and, as declared by E=mc2, matter) can neither be created nor destroyed, then what are we doing here? As far as we've gone in our understanding of the universe, science is far from solving this paradox of physical law, and as long as this great unknown hovers over us, the will of God will remain as good an answer as any.
   Yet I agree with Martin, for if we examine what evidence we do have, if there is a god it surely resembles nothing described by any orthodox religion.
   Let's assume there is a god. How do we know Him (or It; calling God "It" may not by palatable to some, but I find applying a sex to God to be a display of ignorant anthropomorphosizing and mildly offensive, even as a male)? Well, the best way to know someone we cannot contact directly is to examine their actions and the things they've created. In this case, the whole of existence. When we examine all that we know of reality, there is one common denominator that pervades every aspect of every event; mathematics. The one exception might be human thought and emotion, though whether this means consciousness is truly exempt from mathematical processes or simply that our mathematical language is currently too obtuse to be applied to this particular realm of existence is debatable. But since, as a whole, the human experience occupies an extremely insignificant portion of the universe I'll take the liberty of overlooking the fact for this discussion. So with this exception, every event, be it the curving geometry of spacetime, the falling of a tree, or the activities of matter and energy's smallest constituents, can be simulated, described, and understood mathematically. Even if our current models fail to render certain aspects of existence, we can safely assume that the math is there and just has yet to be discovered.
   So what does this tell us? The will of God, while amazing and beautiful, utterly lacks any form of compassion; for if math is the language of God, as must surely be the case, compassion has a zero value. Compassion, as a facet of our human observations, is not actually observed in the world around us, but applied.
   Consider that light, in the absence of eyes, illuminates nothing, because visible form is not inherent in the world but granted by the act of seeing. Events contain no meaning in themselves, only the meaning that the mind imposes on them. And yet the world endures, whether or not the mind exists to give it meaning. So, in my humble opinion, to say that man is the central player to this 14 billion year long (and counting) act of God is egotistical in the extreme.
   We may care whether or not God exists, but all evidence indicates that God couldn't care less what we think. Is, in all probability, incapable of caring what we think.
   With this in mind I am awed by God's creation, and revel in it's complexity and design, and I believe that for God that is enough.

Last edited by Gungnir (2007-03-10 13:04:29)