Peaceful Response to the Question asked Why Won't God Heal Amputees

[laxbro]

Message boards do not compare to face to face conversations just for this reason. I say one thing and ten people say something back. I do not have time to rebuttal all things said back to me. In a conversation I can reply to one thing from one person one at a time. I did not want to and will stop attempting at convincing you God exists in this thread. Start a thread called reasons God exist and reasons he doesn't and see if people discuss it there.

The question posed in this specific thread was "why won't God heal amputees?" This is a question posed in the video to Christians. I found this question most intriguing in the video so I answered it in my first post. This question also presupposes that God exists for the sake of the discussion. Just like in a thermodynamics problem you need to assume certain things to get anywhere.

The question assumes God exists so my answer assumed God exists. If I had to explain every aspect of my faith in answering every question it would get rather annoying and time consuming like it has here.

[monkeymind]

Laxbro:

Message boards do not compare to face to face conversations just for this reason. I say one thing and ten people say something back. I do not have time to rebuttal all things said back to me. In a conversation I can reply to one thing from one person one at a time.

There are discussion rooms and debate rooms available for one on ones, if you really prefer this.

[pianodwarf]

Message boards do not compare to face to face conversations just for this reason. I say one thing and ten people say something back. I do not have time to rebuttal all things said back to me.

This is just about the only area where I have sympathy for Christians who come to WWGHA.  It's actually the same reason that I don't participate in boards run by theists... it's not that I wouldn't be able to hold my own against them, because I would.  It's simply that I would have too many people to respond to, and I just don't have that much free time.  For those rare few theists who come here and stay here (without the intent of trolling, that is), I have to admit to having a good deal of admiration for their perseverance.  Well, either that or their good fortune at not being nearly as busy as I am.

The question ["Why won't god heal amputees?"] assumes God exists

No, it does not... that's the point.  Atheists answer the question by saying that it's because god does not exist.  The question doesn't presuppose the existence of god any more than asking "How can Santa fly around the world in one night?" presupposes that Santa exists.

When you try to address the question, you basically have two options: assume that god exists, and come up with some insane mental exercises to explain why he doesn't heal amputees, or you can just say that he doesn't exist at all.  It's like the classic problem of pain.  If you ask a Christian why an all-loving omnimax god would allow so much pain, you're likely to get something like C.S. Lewis' book on the subject.  Ask an atheist, and the response you'll get is most likely, "he wouldn't".  When trying to figure out which answer makes more sense, one would do well to keep Occam's Razor in mind.

[Hatter23]

But I would like to provide a holistic view of Christianity and not the biased (media-based) opinion most of you seem to have.

Do you base your opions of a large,hetrerogenius, multimillion member group of people based on those few hundred you know from personal experience....or do you base your opion on what you see in the newspaper, TV, and so forth?

You invoke the bogeyman of "the media" as a way of discrediting those that disagree with you. If it weren't for the media, you could equally have charged up with our biased opinions based on or limited exposure/provincialism.

Therefore, your point that our opinions are biased because they are media based is moot.

[laxbro]

But I would like to provide a holistic view of Christianity and not the biased (media-based) opinion most of you seem to have.

Do you base your opions of a large,hetrerogenius, multimillion member group of people based on those few hundred you know from personal experience....or do you base your opion on what you see in the newspaper, TV, and so forth?

You invoke the bogeyman of "the media" as a way of discrediting those that disagree with you. If it weren't for the media, you could equally have charged up with our biased opinions based on or limited exposure/provincialism.

Therefore, your point that our opinions are biased because they are media based is moot.

Ok an earlier in the thread we discussed this. Even if the point is moot. It had nothing to do with the actual answer to the question. It was my reason for answering the question.

[laxbro]

The question ["Why won't god heal amputees?"] assumes God exists

No, it does not... that's the point.  Atheists answer the question by saying that it's because god does not exist.  The question doesn't presuppose the existence of god any more than asking "How can Santa fly around the world in one night?" presupposes that Santa exists.

When you try to address the question, you basically have two options: assume that god exists, and come up with some insane mental exercises to explain why he doesn't heal amputees, or you can just say that he doesn't exist at all.  It's like the classic problem of pain.  If you ask a Christian why an all-loving omnimax god would allow so much pain, you're likely to get something like C.S. Lewis' book on the subject.  Ask an atheist, and the response you'll get is most likely, "he wouldn't".  When trying to figure out which answer makes more sense, one would do well to keep Occam's Razor in mind.

The video should have said "figure out reasons why God exists, if the reasons don't make sense to you then don't believe in him." But it didn't. It tries to pose questions that are impossible to answer. I was writing what I thought to be a valid answer to the question, but it is up to the reader to decide whether my answer is valid or not.

Or the reader can just say God does not exist and not read the answer. Which I don't blame him or her for. It is their right not to read or respond to anything I say.

[velkyn]

laxbro, are you claimign you didn't kwno what a forum was and blithered into here?  I think you are being disingenous with your excuses.

[Tykster]

The question assumes God exists so my answer assumed God exists.

The question only acknowledges that some people think that God exists, that's the only presupposition you can claim about that sentence. It[1] would not need be acknowledged, if previously someone i.e. the faithful believers in God, hadn't brought this entity into the public psyche in the first place.

If I had to explain every aspect of my faith in answering every question it would get rather annoying and time consuming like it has here.

You dont' want defend your faith because you get weary from it, what does that indicate about that faith?

And who is asking you defend every aspect? You're probably just stuck on the first one.....

1.

God

[Operator_020]

Hi laxbro

There are discussion rooms and debate rooms available for one on ones, if you really prefer this.

I am the moderator of that area and I highly recommend this if you feel overwhelmed.   I can set up a discussion room for you and anyone you invite.  You should mutually agree to the moderation rules.  If you wish a well regulated debate or an open discussion, we can accommodate you. 

This is where the magic happens, so if you are interested, just say the word

Happy posting
020

[Tykster]

God is not invisible. He is perceived in different ways. He is plain as day to me. Your not going to like this cliche analogy but I will use it anyway. You cannot see the wind but you know it's there because of its effects and you experience wind. I believe you cannot see God but you can know He is there by the effects He has on people and your experiences. I have experiences of God all the time. Have you experienced fellowship with loving Godly Christians? if not then how can you say what the experience is like. It is nothing like the feeling of false hope (such as your lottery example).

Then let's have a look at him! Has he got a big white beard? Did Hollywood get it right? Is his voice really that deep? Do tell......

But what started the big bang? E=mc^2 so matter comes from energy, but where does energy come from.

I don't think that is quite true.... the equation explains the relationship between matter and energy ( after 10^-43 seconds after lift off so to speak ), and that only. It doesn't explain the cause, if it did we would call it the "cause of the universe" and then God would be well and truly proven NOT to exist as its creator.

At some point, something that wasn't had to come into existence. I see that "something" that started everything into motion as God. At some point, you have to believe in something because nothing can be proven without a doubt

At some point one does have to believe in something...that point is usually arrived at when the evidence overwhelmingly points to it, not because of peer pressure/it feels good/childhood indoctrination, etc. etc.

I gather from your introduction you're at school. Question: Do any of the equations you deal with ever make an allowance for divine intervention....or would that just be a ridiculous idea ?

[laxbro]

laxbro, are you claimign you didn't kwno what a forum was and blithered into here?  I think you are being disingenous with your excuses.

I'm saying I know exactly what a forum is. I'm also saying that discussing the scientific evidences of God, are not well suited for a forum such as this. I was answering the question "why wont God heal amputees?" which I believe a smaller and more suitable discussion for a forum.

[laxbro]

At some point, something that wasn't had to come into existence. I see that "something" that started everything into motion as God. At some point, you have to believe in something because nothing can be proven without a doubt

At some point one does have to believe in something...that point is usually arrived at when the evidence overwhelmingly points to it, not because of peer pressure/it feels good/childhood indoctrination, etc. etc.

I gather from your introduction you're at school. Question: Do any of the equations you deal with ever make an allowance for divine intervention....or would that just be a ridiculous idea ?

Equations and science only deal with the what of the universe. How it works and so on. It cannot explain the whys of the universe. Science deals with what we can observe with our 5 senses. I believe there is something beyond the natural. Supernatural as it is called. God is supernatural so I cannot prove him with science. You would have to believe supernatural experiences are much more than just electric signals in your brain. All of this is the very reason I do not wish to argue the evidences of God because this is not the place to go into talks of the supernatural and not the audience that wants to hear it.

[velkyn]

I'm saying I know exactly what a forum is. I'm also saying that discussing the scientific evidences of God, are not well suited for a forum such as this. I was answering the question "why wont God heal amputees?" which I believe a smaller and more suitable discussion for a forum.

no one else has had a problem, except those Christians who want an excuse.  and you've been offered an alternative.  Are you goign to take anyone up on it?

[laxbro]

I'm saying I know exactly what a forum is. I'm also saying that discussing the scientific evidences of God, are not well suited for a forum such as this. I was answering the question "why wont God heal amputees?" which I believe a smaller and more suitable discussion for a forum.

no one else has had a problem, except those Christians who want an excuse.  and you've been offered an alternative.  Are you goign to take anyone up on it?

No one else has had a problem because no one else is the minority. And my alternative would be a face to face talk, but that won't happen unless you talk to a Christian you know and trust personally.

I have already admitted that I cannot attempt to explain why I believe God exists without going beyond science and I'm assuming no one here would desire a conversation that talk about something beyond science.

[Operator_011]

Try us.

Start a thread in the Testimonials section and tell us why you believe there is a god.

That's exactly what that section is for.

[monkeymind]

Yes^^^That!

You must believe for some reason(s).

We are interested.

[Tykster]

God is supernatural .....

A baseless assertion, but let's go with it anyway....


The supernatural world is just another place to deposit all that is not observable in our universe, and that is where you tell us your god resides. How convenient. People so far have been very patient in explaining where the burden of proof lies, and you still don't get it.

The supernatural world means not of this world. You merrily state that your god happens to live there, hence, it too, is NOT OF THIS WORLD, it's in your imagination...I defer to the earlier comments about you being delusional...this is the very essence of delusion, with a healthy dose of denial.

Equations and science only deal with the what of the universe. How it works and so on. It cannot explain the whys of the universe. Science deals with what we can observe with our 5 senses. I believe there is something beyond the natural. Supernatural as it is called. God is supernatural so I cannot prove him with science. You would have to believe supernatural experiences are much more than just electric signals in your brain. All of this is the very reason I do not wish to argue the evidences of God because this is not the place to go into talks of the supernatural and not the audience that wants to hear it.

Science and the scientific method are the best that humankind has come up with to explain that which we observe around us. Science and the order it unveils is what encourages mankind to seek and probe further, to answer questions that we curious monkeys occasionally think of.  If the answer to any scientific inquiry is "God", that essentially ends any further questions. Your questions though are the "whys" of this world...here's a wake up call, there are no "whys" it's all probabilities and time  ...it's a vast space this universe, and to paraphrase a much smarter person than me, it's so big  that rare things happen all the time....

You're an engineering student, how do you know when to stop trusting science and start trusting the divine?


edit : punctuation.

[Operator_020]

... I'm assuming no one here would desire a conversation that talk about something beyond science.

To a point, I think this is accurate.  The conversations we have tend to revolve around what is or is not fact.  The best way people have to discover this is the scientific method.  So whether the topic of discussion is religion, science, politics or chocolate chip cookies, I think at some point, whatever your opinion, you will be asked, "how do you know?" which leads back to science.

[nogodsforme]

If the OP is right, then nothing is ever wrong, under any set of circumstances, and we humans should just be happy to be alive as we get swallowed up by the ground in an earthquake or drowned in a tsunami or cooked alive by pissed catholics.

"There is nothing to pray here." should be their motto and those of us not yet lacking in body parts or cancers or bullets in the head are no different than those who are experiencing that natural state of existence and there is no need to differentiate in any way.

Now that I understand the concept "Jesus loves whatever is left of you", I understand the religion better.

This helps.

Sig time! I see a bumper sticker in my future.

[Alzael]

Equations and science only deal with the what of the universe. How it works and so on. It cannot explain the whys of the universe.

This is the inherent flaw in your thinking. Or rather two of them. First, you're assuming that there is a 'why' to the universe. This is a fallacy, there is no reason why there should be a why to existence. Humans simply seem to possess a need to assign meaning to things, even when there is no reason.

Also, and this is the one you should really pay attention to.

Religion cannot answer the whys of the universe either.

Your religion, your belief in god, is without proof of any kind. You have no way to even begin to prove that anything in your religion is true, as you've demonstrated here. You try to claim that you have evidence through things that you have experienced, but you are either being ignorant or dishonest. Evidence that you cannot demonstrate to others is not evidence. If you cannot show your evidence for your belief then you do not have the evidence, it is that simple. To claim otherwise is dishonest. Lacking any evidence to prove your religion you cannot make claims about anything regarding the whys of the universe. The best that you can ever hope to offer is an uninformed opinion about the way the universe is.

So on the one hand, there is science. A system based on the accumulation of information through systematic testing, inquiry, and accumulation of evidence in order to understand the world and how it works. Or your way of doing it. Which amounts to either making up answers based on whatever you want it to be, or blindly believing in something someone else tells you and never expanding our learning.

[Positiveaob]

You seem to not understand me concerning the existence vs. non existence. I cannot prove existence because there is always doubt. The person weighing the evidence decides what is reasonable doubt or not. You obviously still have what you perceive as reasonable doubts. I do not. You cannot say "your doubts are unreasonable to you" because they are my own doubts and you cannot tell whether they are reasonable or not to me.

I can absolutely state what doubts are reasonable.  That is what is being debated, what doubts are "reasonable" and which ones arent.  Belief in invisible, undetectable beings in the sky arent reasonable.  Especially when you would have believed in a different set of invisible beings had you grown up in a different time and place.  Especially when a belief in said god or gods doesnt change anything, and it really doesnt.  I have a good career, great family, good health, and happy life, and I dont believe in your god for a second, much less "worship" him as a "lord".  It makes no difference.

God is not invisible.

Sure he is.  You cant see him, he is therefore invisible.  Actually, come to think of it, you're right.  He's not invisible at all.  He's non-existent.

You cannot see the wind but you know it's there because of its effects and you experience wind.

You can feel the wind.  Even hear it and smell it sometimes.  It can be perceived through your senses.  Analogy fails.

I believe you cannot see God but you can know He is there by the effects He has on people and your experiences. I have experiences of God all the time.

Those "effects" have alternatvive explanations.  You believe theyre due to a god because that's what you WANT to believe.

Have you experienced fellowship with loving Godly Christians? if not then how can you say what the experience is like. It is nothing like the feeling of false hope (such as your lottery example).

Did you experience the joys of waiting for Santa when you were a child?  Does that offer proof that he existed?

Or on a more serious note, have you ever read the correspondence between the 9/11 hijackers leading up to that fateful day?  They were ecstatic  over what they were about to do and how they were going to soon be with Allah.

Have yopu ever seen videos of the Jonestown massacre, the interviews prior to them drinking the kool-aid?  Ever seen footage of teh Heaven's gate cult prior to their mass-suicide?

When you fully convince yourself something wonderful is going to happen, no matter how ridiculous, you feel pretty wonderful.  Doesnt offer any proof or evidence.

There's plenty of happiness out there without your god-belief, laxbro.  time to wake up.  the emperor has no clothes.

[luisveras]

I cannot prove there is a God 100% just like you cannot prove there is not a God 100%.

The burden of proof relies on the person that says that X exists, not on the person that says that it doesn't. You cannot "prove" that something "doesn't exist" if there no trace of said thing in existance. Can you prove that there are no lepprechauns? Can you prove that there are no mermaids? Can you prove that there are no unicorns? So, since you can't "prove that they don't exist", does that mean that they do exist?

[luisveras]

I believe that God created the universe so large to show how small we really are and how great He is.

That is your rationalization. That is an 'excuse' you make up in an attempt to fit the pieces of 5,000 year old beliefs with modern science.

If you had read your Bible, you would see how your "perfect" God describes the process of creating the universe. Read Genesis 1:2, there it explains the universe as vast mass of water in every direction. Think of an eternal ocean with no sky. Then, in Genesis 1:6-7, he explains how he had to create a "firmament" to "separate the waters from the waters" (remember, the universe was all water), and he separated the water above from the water below the "firmament". The "firmament" is a firm structure (like a hard, fixed dome), needed to hold the water "above". This firmament is what is called heaven, see Genesis 1:8. That's how "perfect" and "all-knowing" God describes the universe. Nothing like we now know it is.

And it's not a methaphore, whoever wrote this book really thought the world had this structure (a dome inside a huge ocean, and earth inside the dome). Notice Genesis 7:11-12 when God "opened the windows of heaven" (remember Genesis 1:8 heaven=firmament) to flood the earth from the water above. Whoever wrote this book really did think that water from "above the firmament" was used to flood the earth. In other words, they believed that if you flied to the skies you would eventually bump into a hard dome, which holds water above it. This is clearly the mind of a primitive human being that did not know what you and I now know of the structure of the universe. If the bible was truly the "word of God", don't you think it wouldn't have these ridiculous mistakes?

If, like you said, God wanted to "create the universe so large to show how small we really are and how great he is", don't you think he would have correctly described the insignificance of planet earth within the vastness of the universe in his book?

Again, this excuse that you are now using, is something Christians had to invent in the last couple hundred of years to cope with the fact that science has consistently and progresively proven most parts of the Bible to be completely wrong. But if you go back in time before Galileo started discovering the true size of the universe, and this 'excuse' was not part of the Christian dogma. This excuse is an invention of man of recent times.

But what started the big bang? E=mc^2 so matter comes from energy, but where does energy come from. At some point, something that wasn't had to come into existence. I see that "something" that started everything into motion as God.

That is a self-negating argument. If the following argument is correct: "anything that exists must be started and put into motion by something else", then in order for God to exist, he himself would have had to be created by some other God or creator. To that you will probably respond "but God was not created", and with that you are admiting that it is possible for something to "exist without being created". Therefore, the universe can exist without being created.

As you can see, the same logic you are trying to use to explain why there "must" be a God, is the very logic that proves that the universe can exist without having a need for a "creator".

[luisveras]

I believe you cannot see God but you can know He is there by the effects He has on people and your experiences. I have experiences of God all the time. Have you experienced fellowship with loving Godly Christians? if not then how can you say what the experience is like. It is nothing like the feeling of false hope (such as your lottery example).

Let me explain something to you. I really do believe you when you say you "feel" God, and have all these experiences of well being. I believe you, because I have had these experiences too. I felt them when I was a teenager, and had just spent an hour on the phone with my crush, and then just lie in bed imagining what it would be like to have her as my girlfriend, and I would review the conversation in my head, looking for hints that she liked me, and everytime I found a hint that she really did like me, I simply began floating and got excited about the fact that we would soon get together and become boyfriend and girlfriend. I also had a similar experience the first time I saw my favorite rock band on a stage. I was speechless, I felt an intense feeling through my body. I had goose bumps. I literally could not speak for the first five minutes after they came out. I was just about to cry like a little girl (just like those girls you see crying in old Michael Jackson concert footage). Another good example, for me, is Apollo 11 mission. Everytime I see a documentary about it, and see that video of Neil Armstrong steping onto the moon and saying those words, I have goosebumps just thinking about that great advance for humanity. It's intense! Oh, the list goes on, you get the idea.

What I'm trying to say here is that "feeling" you have that you think is God, is simply a series of biological and neurological functions acting up, when you believe you are in the presence of something great. That is common to every human being. That is why you feel that way when you pray to the christian God (because you believe you are in front of something great), but wouldn't feel it if you prayed to Buddha. Likewise, a muslim feels it when he prays to the muslim Allah (because he believes he's in front of something great), but wouldn't feel it if he prayed to Jesus. How do you think that dozens of other religions have been able to last several centuries, including the really primitive religions of the mayans and aztecs, which even Christians recognize to be extremely primitive? They all are able to last because the human body is capable of "feeling God", as long as they truly believe in what they are praying, or doing, or when feel they are in the presence of something great (like I felt when I was front row seeing my favorite rock band). As you can see, everyone "feels" this, regardless of who they are praying to, or who they admire or have strong feelings about. And there is one simple explanation: this "feeling" is caused by the human body itself, it's part of its biology and neurology. There's a whole science behind this (look it up). This "feeling" is not caused by "God", because, if it were, only followers of the christian religion (or whichever the "right" religion was) would feel it, and the rest wouldn't. But everyone feels it, that's why everyone else sticks by their religion throughout their lives, unless they attempt to rid themselves of all the barriers that tradition, authority and dogma have put onto them. Once you begin thinking on your own, without believing that someone is watching you, without feeling guilty that He might be offended and therefore punish you, without thinking you will let your mom down.... once you are able to do that, you will begin realizing all of the nonsense you used to believe.

I would suggest you read this page http://www.godisimaginary.com/i7.htm titled "Understanding religious delusion", and watch its accompanying video http://www.godisimaginary.com/video7.htm. If you read this and see this video with a truly open mind, you should be able to build-up enough doubt to investigate a little further. Once you do, you will quickly realize what we already know, that believing in God is just as primitive and nonsensical as believing in Zeus.

Only then you will become a truly free human being. Best of luck!

[luisveras]

Equations and science only deal with the what of the universe. How it works and so on. It cannot explain the whys of the universe. Science deals with what we can observe with our 5 senses. I believe there is something beyond the natural. Supernatural as it is called. God is supernatural so I cannot prove him with science. You would have to believe supernatural experiences are much more than just electric signals in your brain. All of this is the very reason I do not wish to argue the evidences of God because this is not the place to go into talks of the supernatural and not the audience that wants to hear it.

In reality, nothing is "Supernatural". Supernatural is a word used to describe a phenomenon you can't explain. The primitive man thought weather events (rain, storms, tornadoes, thunder) were all supernatural, so he prayed to his gods to protect his tribe from these "supernatural" events. The primitive man also thought shooting stars, eclipses and earthquakes were supernatural events. I'm sure the first primate that saw fire thought fire was supernatural, until he learned to control it.

You may call certain experiences 'supernatural' because you can't explain how they happen, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a logical and scientifically explainable reason for it. We may not have the scientific answer today for many unexplanable phenomenons, but history has consistently proven year after year, without fail, that everything that the primitive man once thought to be supernatural, it turned out to have a scientific explanation.

[luisveras]

... I'm assuming no one here would desire a conversation that talk about something beyond science.

To a point, I think this is accurate.  The conversations we have tend to revolve around what is or is not fact.  The best way people have to discover this is the scientific method.  So whether the topic of discussion is religion, science, politics or chocolate chip cookies, I think at some point, whatever your opinion, you will be asked, "how do you know?" which leads back to science.

I believe it's important to point out that when we say science, we're mainly talking about using the scientific method. I think it's important to mention this, because sometimes, when someone says 'science' people start thinking of NASA, Microsoft, biology and Albert Einstein. But science, or rather, the scientific method is something much more simpler than that. It's simply observing a phenomenon, gather data from the observation, then develop a hypothesis as to why the phenomenon occurs, and then perform experiments trying to duplicate the phenomenon, attempting to prove or disprove the hypothesis, with the eventual result (after many trials and errors) to determine what causes the phenomenon, and then establishing a theory or law around your observations.

From that point of view, if God did exist, we would be able to prove it with science (again, "science" doesn't mean with the help of a rocket scientist, but the use of the scientific method). For example, let's say the hypothesis is "God exists, and he allows his son Jesus to answer some of their follower's prayers". Then, we ask how can we prove that Jesus is answering prayers? And we then determine a good experiment to be to compare the average % of cancer survivors, with the average % of cancer survivors that prayed to him. Then, we make a list of 1,000 non christians with cancer, and get another 1,000 cancer patients that believe in Jesus (we have to make sure they are faithful practicing christians, that pray every day). Once we make the list, we would observe over the next few months/years, and see the survival rate of one group (non christians) and the other group (praying christians). If God exists and he allows Jesus to answer prayers, then the group of christians would have a much higher % rate of cancer survival than the other, non-praying group. If this were to occur, you would have just proven that God existed scientifically (i.e. using the scientific method).

So, as silly as it may sound, if God did exist, we would undoubtedly be able to prove it scientifically, with experiments like the one above, or many other similar scientific observations.

[monkeymind]

Louis:

If God exists and he allows Jesus to answer prayers, then the group of christians would have a much higher % rate of cancer survival than the other, non-praying group. If this were to occur, you would have just proven that God existed scientifically (i.e. using the scientific method).

You may actually have proven that prayer helps (even if there is no God, Allah, etc,).

[Operator_020]

I believe it's important to point out that when we say science, we're mainly talking about using the scientific method.

That you for articulating what I meant, luisveras.

020

[velkyn]

unecessary quotes removed  -020

No one else has had a problem because no one else is the minority. And my alternative would be a face to face talk, but that won't happen unless you talk to a Christian you know and trust personally.

I have already admitted that I cannot attempt to explain why I believe God exists without going beyond science and I'm assuming no one here would desire a conversation that talk about something beyond science.

more excuses and of course you won't take us up on the offer. That would open you up for actually having to discuss something and not whining how much of a "minority" you are.  Sorry, again, that hasn't been a problem before.  You before said that you can discuss the scientific evidences for god but the forum wasn't good for that, and now you say that you *have* to go beyond science.  Which is it?  Or is it anything you can think of so you don't have to actually defend your baseless claims?