[Controversial Discussion] GOD

[Inferno]

I actually believe that science backs up the existence of God. Whatever science discovers its just one step closer to proving God's existence.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

Hey the Quran seems pretty ace at linking retrospectively and through the use of allegories, vague metaphors, and prose to theories based on the scientific method. Starting a section with scientific miracles wasn't really the way to get me on side. The best, the very best i can say about those revelations is that the quran may be on par with a mediocre science fiction novel. Asimov and Clarke had far more accurate predictions of future technology and discoveries, you don't hear them claiming godly status.

Asimov and Clarke do not claim godly status and neither does Muhammad. Muhammad has clearly stated that he does not want wealth, women or reward. He is just a warner and a messenger. And some the facts stated in the Quran could not have been discovered at that time because advanced technology would have been needed to discover it and advanced technology did not exists 1400 years ago. Also, Embryology in top universities uses the Quranic terms and stages when teaching since it is more accurate.

[Inferno]

C.S Lewis wrote the whole Narnia series. He is a total loon.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Ste

Ok, The fact that there is a definite start to the universe, and a definite centre of the universe, and energy can't be made, there must have been an event billions of years ago that gave energy to everything at a single point in space and time in order for this universe to exist as it does.
It's called the big bang. Maybe it was God. Who knows.
All I'm doing is giving you evidence that there was a Big Bang.
I'm not sure whether you believe in this or not, but it's not usually the Christian belief.

Basically you're saying that there's proof that the Universe started with a 'bang', as such. Redshift, etc. This I knew.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Ste

You read it that quickly did you? hmm.

Yes. Skimmed the boring parts.

Did you scroll down at all? There's a whole section on Macroevolution (and a nice link for extra info)
And a nice link called Evidence of Evolution

I'm saying that I didn't see anything in the explanation that warrants my taking up atheism.

However - the BEST bit is this link. It should actually help you argue in this thread. Evolution doesn't contradict Religion.
It does however contradict the literal interpretation.
So backing up my point
It might actually be worth everyone reading...

Look, it might not contradict the liberal Christian interpretation of early Genesis - but this view is in a minority, according to my experience. Personally, I believe something closer to Old Earth Creationism.
Evolution does contradict the beliefs of a great many Christians.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Inferno

C.S Lewis wrote the whole Narnia series. He is a total loon.

He is my favourite author. Have you read the Narnia series?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Inferno

3. What you fail to understand that the same God who sent down Moses with the Torah sent down Jesus with the Bible and Muhammad with the Quran. These holy books were not written by man, they originate from God. How reliable these books are now is doubtful to most since the Bible has clearly been interfered with.

I strongly disagree. The Bible, in particular, is clear on this issue. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

1. Not a great deal - I am no physicist. What has always puzzled me, is the fact that the Big Bang theory seems to presuppose a definite creation of the universe (and therefore everything in it); but if this is so, what caused the Big Bang itself?
If nothing existed before the Big Bang, how did it come to pass? Anti-matter? Sounds fishy and definately not proven.

You've got it the wrong way round here. Scientists didn't debate different methods of how the universe had a definite creation, and then said 'Hey, this big bang method looks pretty funky!'

The Big Bang model came out of a combination of the discovery of Red Shift and Einstein's General Relativity. Scientists were shocked when they found this. It was questioned by the whole scientific community. But, as is the nature of science, there was sufficient evidence to convince them otherwise.

As I have said before, you cannot definitively prove how historical events occured, because we can't observe or repeat them. However, we can observe evidence that these events occured; the cosmic microwave background, for example. The relative movement of galaxies.

We can make conjectures about how the universe began, of course. However, science is not designed to answer these; it cannot and will not. Under current knowledge, for example, knowing what came before the universe is, by definition, impossible.

But what we can do is observe patterns and trends, and extrapolate.

The Big Bang model has a larger volume of evidence going for it than everything else in the history of humanity.

Originally Posted by Boogster

2. I know there have been specimens unearthed that resemble both a primate and a homosapien. I also know that recent theory suggests that these specimens are merely subsections of the human race, and represent no link between two distinct species.

You're not understanding how evolution works. There are no definite species. There aren't steps along the way; all states, all species, are transitionary. We have found links between the apes and man; homo erectus, for example. Don't expect there to be some form of 'ape-man', because that's not how evolution works; half way between fish and mammals you didn't get a mammalian fish.

We name species based on individual characteristics of the species. However, this approach has been shown to be flawed. We stick with it for the lack of anything better, but based on the knowledge that something being a 'species' isn't the be all and end all of the tale of its existance.

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/l.../timeline.html

Originally Posted by Boogster

I know that no such bridge has as of yet been found. I know that even the most atheist of scientists still describe their belief in evolution as dependant upon faith. I also know that Darwin himself rejected his own theory and became a Christian late in life.

You're still misinterpreting what Dawkins said. He knows the process of evolution to be fact. The faith comes from using that knowledge to describe the past; we have an incomplete view of the past, and we can never be sure whether we are correct, or whether our evidence is just random chance (unlikely, but possible).

He defined very specifically what he thought was his 'faith'. It was to do with the ancestory of life, not with whether evolution exists.

You still haven't answered my question, by the way. What interpretation of Dawkins's comments do you have which is neither in agreement with my comments upon it, nor argued by them?

Oh, and

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darwin.htm

Originally Posted by Boogster

3. I believe what the Bible says to be true is true.

Why the bible? Why the NT? Why not the OT? Why not the Qu'ran as well?

Originally Posted by Boogster

4. Not many. If I were perfect, I would do exactly what God wanted. I am not, and therefore I am certain not to.

What church of the Christian Faith do you belong to?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

It's merely a theory.

Meaning of theory from Dictionary.com:

-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
-The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
-A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
-Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


So it can't be right. Facts are right. Theories aren't.

Oh for christ's sake. Here we go again.

A scientific theory is called a theory because of the nature of empiricism. Science is an exercise in modelling, about creating ideas that correspond with reality as well as you can measure. However, no matter how much you measure your idea, you can never be sure it is entirely correct; the possibility remains, for example, that all your results up to now have been random chance (this is extremely unlikely; scientific experiments are specifically designed to reduce error, and any that are not accurate and precise enough are either repeated, redesigned or rejected.) or because we can't measure the data which will disagree with it at some future point.

Science is a fundamentally honest subject, and even though the chances are slim to none, it refuses to call things 'facts', per se. It refers to its discoveries as 'theories', simply because it is possible, if in some cases hideously unlikely, that it will be refuted at a future date.

The use of the word 'theories' does not mean that there is no evidence for it, that we can't make predictions off it, that we don't base our technology off it.

All it means is that we cannot, by the nature of empiricism, to prove it irrevocably true.

What's strange is that not only did I comment upon this misconception earlier in the thread, but the dictionary definition also refers to this meaning. What's even stranger is that there is a definition there which is defines theory as being anything but itself. Curious.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I cannot see your point.

He has faith in evolution, yes?
But no proof, yes?

More importantly, while he is of course not merely referring to the origin of humanity, he is not excluding it, as far as I can see.

Have you not been reading my replies? Have you not got the capacity to understand basic english?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

He does not explain macroevolution fully, or give sufficient evidence for such a process occuring between apes and man.

He does not need to explain macroevolution, as it has been proven to exist. Hell, it's been proven to exist when there was no physical divide between the diverging species. Darwin predicted that, everyone thought he was a crackpot for that part. Turns out he was right. Whatdya' know?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Well, yeah. I don't believe the two to be mutually exclusive though, and neither did the fathers of modern science (eg. Newton).

Other fathers of modern science include St Thomas Aquinas and William of Occam, theologians both. Scientific method, and knowledge, has progressed somewhat since those days.

As a comparison, in Newton's day time was thought to be constant across the universe, and that it was possible to accelerate to any speed, given enough time.

We now know both of these 'facts' to be false; why should belief in God be any different? Is there something special about faith that, if all of their other beliefs, be it scientific or nay, are found wanting, then the belief in the LORD is somehow immune to this by its very nature?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

You have not read C.S Lewis' 'Mere Christianity', right? Are you too scared too? I imagine not.

Assuming this is an open question, what exactly are you trying to say? I am, personally, very interested in theology and the history of the church. However, all of the arguments I have seen for god (bar maybe Pascal's Wager, but that's fairly irrelevent in these discussions) have been found wanting.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

He is my favourite author. Have you read the Narnia series?

I know I have. They're pretty patronising in places, but not too bad overall. I prefer, say, Waugh, from that period anyway.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I strongly disagree. The Bible, in particular, is clear on this issue. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe.

This has been raised before, but which version of the Bible? Does it worry you that you could be following slightly mistranslated text (or something along those lines).

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This has been raised before, but which version of the Bible? Does it worry you that you could be following slightly mistranslated text (or something along those lines).

I thought Luther solved this problem?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

1. I know how it happened and the theories about how it was caused. The main one, I was told, was about negative and positive energies unbalancing causing the explosion and creating matter. But the flaw is what causes the shift in the unbalanced energies? It cant just happen by itself. Another one being an endless cycle of universes being exploded, expanding, contracting and exploding again. But how did it start?

Answered this above.

Originally Posted by Inferno

2. There is sufficient evidence for evolution in lower species. Darwin, as a Christian, stated that his thoery cannot be applied to humans only in lower species. This thoery was only taken up and spread by scientists and atheists who decided to add humans to the thoery of evolution because there was no need of a God. They find homosapiens and other fossils of half-man half-ape creatures and say they are the ancestors of man. But most of the fossils discovered were fakes and rejected and there were no links between these fossils. They could very well be just variations of apes or humans and nothing in between.

I think you're making some mighty big assumptions there; how do you know that people thought that humans evolved because there was no need of a god? Why can't it have been extended because it was logical to not exclude only one creature, and as a by-product removed the need for god?

Anyway, evolution can be seen in humans today. We're not the same as we were 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, and in ways that can't be explained solely by a better diet and improved medicine. Know someone with a hereditary resistance to a disease? That's evolution.

Re: the fossil discussion, I've either answered that earlier, or you're talking about, as qb said, the God of the Gaps.

Originally Posted by Inferno

3. What you fail to understand that the same God who sent down Moses with the Torah sent down Jesus with the Bible and Muhammad with the Quran. These holy books were not written by man, they originate from God. How reliable these books are now is doubtful to most since the Bible has clearly been interfered with.

So what you're saying is that you have faith that the bits of your faith that you have faith in have been unaltered? That's a whole lot of unsupported belief.

Originally Posted by Inferno

4. Why do you keep using this example? Name me one verse that in the Quran, Torah or Bible that says give all your possesions away. Not one and I guarantee you that. The verses tell you to give what you have so that you may avoid greediness. And no-one likes a stingy bastard, not just God.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wil enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The young man saith unto him, All these thing have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that tou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Matthew 20: 16-21.

Originally Posted by Flavius

Muslims have to give 2.5% of their wealth to the poor, and help those that come in their way.

Zakat, it's one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Who'd have thought that my GCSE RS course could come in useful, eh?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

And some the facts stated in the Quran could not have been discovered at that time because advanced technology would have been needed to discover it and advanced technology did not exists 1400 years ago. Also, Embryology in top universities uses the Quranic terms and stages when teaching since it is more accurate.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/fallacies.html

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I'm saying that I didn't see anything in the explanation that warrants my taking up atheism.

I don't think you should become an atheist, your faith is obviously important to you.
I wouldn't consider myself an atheist. All I'm asking is that you question your blind faith slightly.
You wonder why Christianity is becoming less and less popular? It's because you are ignoring evidence that the literal meaning of the bible (the english one especially) is not true.
Religions have to evolve as much as anything does to survive.

Look, it might not contradict the liberal Christian interpretation of early Genesis - but this view is in a minority, according to my experience. Personally, I believe something closer to Old Earth Creationism.
Evolution does contradict the beliefs of a great many Christians.

You talk about "Pick and choose" Well, I'm sure you pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow as well. Mrl has produced examples from the bible that I'm sure you don't follow.

And your experience with liberal christians. Where are you from?
In the UK most Christians I meet are much more liberal.
Perhaps you need to be open minded and look at all the evidence against what you believe. If what you believe is true then it will withstand it.

[Inferno]

If Allah was going to use science to prove the Qur’an, then why not do it in a way that does not depend upon clever exegesis from the supporters of that argument? Rather, Allah could have done it in a way that was indisputable. For instance, why not predict TV with a verse such as: "Say: ‘Men shall watch images that move in a small box that stands in the corner of their dwelling.’"

One of the events before the day of judgement is that the Anti-Christ will come and he will be known all over the world and claim godly status.

1400 years ago it would have taken years to travel around the world so how could he be known throughout the world? T.V. or whatever else may come after.

And the quran is meant to be the last living miracle, I was told. We will keep discovering new facts from the quran till the end of time.

Want a prediction? The universe will end with the Big Crunch. A verse in the quran saying that after God has created the heavens and expanded it he will roll it back up. I will find the quote if you want.

[Nusselt]

I still don't get why religion seems to use science as a crutch, develop some backbone that man, you have faith. Trying to use science to support theology gives the appearance of an inferiority complex (it can't be that can it?).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

One of the events before the day of judgement is that the Anti-Christ will come and he will be known all over the world and claim godly status.

1400 years ago it would have taken years to travel around the world so how could he be known throughout the world? T.V. or whatever else may come after.

And the quran is meant to be the last living miracle, I was told. We will keep discovering new facts from the quran till the end of time.

Want a prediction? The universe will end with the Big Crunch. A verse in the quran saying that after God has created the heavens and expanded it he will roll it back up. I will find the quote if you want.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/fallacies.html

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/fallacies.html

I have read that. If you are talking about the bit about running out of resource, I doubt it would. Some verses will still be repeated with new discoveries. He assumed that it would take one verse for one discovery. He hasnt even touched a quran, let him use the direct source and then disprove it. For many centuries people before you tried and failed. Philosophers, scientists and even mathmaticians who try to find mathematical inconsistencies in the Quran yet none have succeeded. Strange isnt it? Thats what worries me.

[Nusselt]

can you name some of the people?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

I have read that. If you are talking about the bit about running out of resource, I doubt it would.

Christ no. I was talking about the 'basing it on interpretation'.

Your counterargument was 'Hey! This doesn't need interpretation, look how I interpret this!'.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wil enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The young man saith unto him, All these thing have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that tou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Matthew 20: 16-21.


Zakat, it's one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Who'd have thought that my GCSE RS course could come in useful, eh?

Jesus gave that as a direct advice to that person. Since he has attained a certain level of piety he is ready to give.

And 2.5% is not all your wealth. It is there to stop greediness and to force those who do not wish to give charity to give that little bit. And you are wrong Flav, not all muslims need to give 2.5%, some are exempt.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Boogster

He is my favourite author. Have you read the Narnia series?

Yes I have. Anyone with too much time to write that series is a loon. So is JK Rowling.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Jesus gave that as a direct advice to that person. Since he has attained a certain level of piety he is ready to give.

Almost all of Jesus' teachings were targeted towards specific individuals or groups. Are we going to ignore those too?

Furthermore, you said that nowhere in the Bible was it said to give your possessions away. I mentioned a place in the bible where Jesus says to do just that, thus disproving your statement.

Originally Posted by Inferno

And 2.5% is not all your wealth. It is there to stop greediness and to force those who do not wish to give charity to give that little bit. And you are wrong Flav, not all muslims need to give 2.5%, some are exempt.

Some are exempt, but not very many.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Yes I have. Anyone with too much time to write that series is a loon. So is JK Rowling.

Wow, that's the oddest thing in this thread.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Some are exempt, but not very many.

Ok, you got me on that one. But you should revise your GCSE RS on Zakat because it all depends on your wealth income. If you reach a quotent (right spelling?) then you have to pay and if you cant then you are not obliged to.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Ok, you got me on that one. But you should revise your GCSE RS on Zakat because it all depends on your wealth income. If reach a quotent (right spelling?) then you have to pay and if you cant then you are not obliged to.

Quotient.

Anyway, where did I say everyone had to pay?

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wil enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The young man saith unto him, All these thing have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that tou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Matthew 20: 16-21.

I just found the flaw in your argument. Jesus said sell what you have, and give to the poor. He did not specifically tell him to sell all your possessions.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

I just found the flaw in your argument. Jesus said sell what you have, and give to the poor. He did not specifically tell him to sell all your possessions.

And now quote my post where I say that you have to sell all your possessions!

If you actually check, I was using similar language to the part of the NT I was quoting. Spooky, eh?

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Quotient.

Anyway, where did I say everyone had to pay?

You said not many were exempt therefore only some didnt have to pay and most did.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

4. How many possessions do you have? When are you planning to give them away?

How many possessions do you have? I have only 200 possesions.

When are you planning to give them away? So you mean all of it?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

How many possessions do you have? I have only 200 possesions.

When are you planning to give them away? So you mean all of it?

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast

Go and sell what you have! If you take mine to mean all, then you MUST take the verse to mean all, because you'd have to make the same linguistic inference.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

You said not many were exempt therefore only some didnt have to pay and most did.

But... most do pay?

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

But... most do pay?

Differs from region to region.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Differs from region to region.

Meh. Had a look for some statistics, but couldn't find any.

[Inferno]

Look, I think we have dragged this out too long. Its interesting to get to see arguments from the other point of view and to have some intellectual discussion.

When I said why talk about God if you have no knowledge about him or his existence I was referring to people I meet in everyday life. Not you lot. You lot are too educational.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Meh. Had a look for some statistics, but couldn't find any.

A poor country would not force people to pay Zakah since they wont qualifiy. A rich country would make more people pay since the reach the quotient. There isnt an Islamic State so no real figures can be found but if you search pre-1900/1800 you may have some luck.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

A poor country would not force people to pay Zakah since they wont qualifiy. A rich country would make more people pay since the reach the quotient. There isnt an Islamic State so no real figures can be found but if you search pre-1900/1800 you may have some luck.

That seems a bit overcomplicated (or oversimplistic, depending on how you read it). Surely you mean 'The poor countries have fewer people who meat the requirements, and therefore a less percentage of their population pays'?

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That seems a bit overcomplicated (or oversimplistic, depending on how you read it). Surely you mean 'The poor countries have fewer people who meat the requirements, and therefore a less percentage of their population pays'?

Ya.

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by Alessio

When fat people do it with fat people then their kid is likely to become fat easier.. etc.. and if that kinda stuff happends for millions of years then I think their could some change in the human race.. (I know my english sux)

This is not strictly true. Especially the 'kid is likely to become fat easier'.

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Oh for christ's sake. Here we go again.

Snip

Curious.

I was bored Mark. I felt like saying 'something'.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

I was bored Mark. I felt like saying 'something'.

You didn't have to say something wrong though.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

This is not strictly true. Especially the 'kid is likely to become fat easier'.

Quite true. He was describing a system of Lamarckist Evolution, which has been shown not to exist.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Quite true. He was describing a system of Lamarckist Evolution, which has been shown not to exist.

"Being likely to become fat" is partially genetic, as it generally depends upon factors such as metabolism and bone structure. Also saying that lamarckian evolution doesnt exist is a bit oversimplified - inherited characteristics are almost always passed onto the next generation, although the transmission mechanism is normally social/parental conditioning rather than purely genetic factors. Darwianian evolution didn't originally specify a particular mechanism either.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

"Being likely to become fat" is partially genetic, as it generally depends upon factors such as metabolism and bone structure. Also saying that lamarckian evolution doesnt exist is a bit oversimplified - inherited characteristics are almost always passed onto the next generation, although the transmission mechanism is normally social/parental conditioning rather than purely genetic factors. Darwianian evolution didn't originally specify a particular mechanism either.

Quite true.

[Androme]

I can't be arsed to read this whole thread - too many false replies anyway.

I believe I can believe in whatever I chose to believe in and I think other people can believe in a God or not. Whatever you believe in, and if you truely believe in it, that will happen.

People who receive visions - where do they come from? God or some other external force not visible in this world. We can't alter the time dimension so it requires a greater being who has control or access to it - which fits the description of God. Awe, mystery & wonder is an insight to an external force and this external force has been considered by humans by a long time to be the idea of God. I find the idea of God perfectly acceptable because it explains the existance of the atom in nothingness - I believe this and always have and always will do.

The idea of God has come about from the experience of awe, mystery & wonder to explain its diveness, its creativity, its complexity, its greatness etc.

Infernoho, you say no-one has no knowledge of his existance etc. - you can see his work through his creations. It's like the same thing as a pencil for example - you can't exactly proove the pencil was made by man (and not for example, a machine) but you can prove someone/something created the object through of its existance. This is a similar argument that can be used for God - you can see God's creations in existance - where he exists is outside of his creation - like a pencil creator lives outside of his pencil.