Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
yes?

Well, that would be something you don't ever see machines doing (though who knows what they get up to when we're out of the house).

I agree that the living machine argument can explain the physical reality we can see. But I think there's a self-referential limit there. You can only explain with science what is explicable with science.

I suppose what I'm saying is that there are things (possibly illusionary) which may be unknowable, or at least inscrutable, like free will. You know, the ghost in the machine. The easy way out is to point to the divine clockmaker.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

From the article provided by IRex
A plausible evolutionary hypothesis suggests itself: limited resources led to the selection for within-group cooperation and between-group competition in humans, resulting in within-group amity and between-group enmity.

So how much research money did they spend to figure out this little gem of common sense? And they say metaphysicians are useless!

--Dave

[Rían]

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I agree that the living machine argument can explain the physical reality we can see. But I think there's a self-referential limit there. You can only explain with science what is explicable with science.

I suppose what I'm saying is that there are things (possibly illusionary) which may be unknowable, or at least inscrutable, like free will. You know, the ghost in the machine. The easy way out is to point to the divine clockmaker.

oh absolutely. Theres dark areas we dont know yet. may never know. but 99% of it can be written down as math. and it wouldnt be going out of line to assume the remainder could as well if we could figure it all out.

Keep in mind that there have been phenomena through out human history that humans could not explain and so concluded it must be a sign of god or the divine and it can never be explained with science. things like lightening, thunder, the stars, the sun, the seasons, storms, you name it the list is almost endless. Well now we can wind numbers around all those things and we can explain them as quantifiable features of our known universe. There is no more mystery about them anymore. To me a running dog even free will fits in the same way. this isnt to say i dont find joy or shock or wonder in certain things in life but when i feel these ways i know its because of a trillion biophysiologic interactions involving hormones and synapsis and brain chemicals and muscle movements that make up the working mechanisms of this amazing machine we call ourselves.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Then this means that you would have no problem at all with a person killing any number of babies in terrible, drawn-out, vicious ways, as long as they can "get away with it?"

now RÃ*an stop trying to make ME out to be the baby killer here. I thought we all agreed it was your role.

The easy tricky answer would be “no. no more so then god would have a problem with it.� But Ill play along and actually answer one of your rhetorical questions if you like.

It has nothing to do with ME it has to do with NATURE. Nature sets the rules. If it benefits the organism to kill a baby (even brutally) then it can happen. Chances are pretty low though considering in our species having a propensity to kill babies can get you in pretty much the most serious trouble imaginable. As in dead. Certainly at least a life of non-breeding. Either way end of genes for unabashed baby mutilating. Now if I witness someone killing a baby sure Im gonna take issue with it. Not because god tells me to but because if you kill a fellow human then you can just as likely kill me or my baby. And the more you allow that then the more baby killers there out there breeding waiting to kill YOU and YOUR baby. And of course being killed or allowing my baby to be killed would mean Im not passing my genes on. So if my genes (and my societal reinforcements) allow for repugnance at the idea of killing a baby then it can be to my benefit to act in this way.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I disagree that the "same goes for humans". IMO, from observation, humans have moral feelings about the act of murder.

considering how often we murder each other what ever moral feelings we have apparently have only a limited effect. And anyway having moral feelings is irrelevent to the fact that we are animals.

Do you really think the machines turn themselves on at night and have fun drawing beautiful sunsets and things? By your use of the word "anyone", you have just demonstrated that the machine has a PERSON behind it that is the source of the drawing.

and to you this “PERSON� is god guiding us to draw stuff. To me its just nature that allows for cognitive exploration and exercise. Theres a nice evolutionary reason we create. And because it’s a useful tool there is an accompanying feeling of elation or “fun� as you put it. This machine simply utilizes a kind of award mechanism to reinforce behavior. “fun� is not a kind of cloud sent down by god. Its in our brains all along.

You avoided the question - are humans of the same value as rabbits or any other animal?

valuable to who? Humans are pretty valuable to each other. We need each other to breed and survive. We don’t need rabbits to do that. But you can be sure rabbits find other rabbits much more valuable then humans for the very same reasons.

Wouldja miss me? If so, why, since there are plenty of other machine females?

Since you are part of my “moot tribe� and we have patterned on each other as supporting members of the tribe (work with me here now) then there would be a physiological feeling of “loss� and sadness that would make great sense on a biological level since your loss to the tribe would be a detrament and therefore could be a problem to our survival. But yeah id get over it pretty quick and find other machine females to flirt with.

and I will not allow you to get away with saying that morality is merely what is good for survivial unless you are willing to admit that you would have no inherent problem slaughtering babies as long as it did not affect survival at all.

see answer to first rant about baby killing above.

In your scenario, there is no value in beauty unless it helps survival, right? Do you really believe that?

prey tell how much is “beauty� worth exactly? Can you give me a figure? No because the terms “beauty� and “value� are not apples to apples.

That which we find “beautiful� is that way for a REASON. Not just randomly or accidently. The brain circuitry that allows us to define what is beautiful has developed that way because recognizing those things as beautiful are beneficial to us and/or to our genes. That’s all. Enjoy the world. But realize your enjoyment OF it is defined by your development IN it.

[Insidious Rex]

Since we were told to shut up in the gay thread. Im jumping here with this…

Originally posted by RÃ*an

IRex - I think a thinking person would really hesitate to say that they KNOW, one way or the other, if there is a God. It is, of course, unproveable, one way or the other, in the sense of measurable scientific proof, and we all seem to agree on this.

How do you know it cannot be proved?

Of course it's also unproveable, in the sense of measureable scientific proof, that my husband loves me

this I think would be easier to prove. The emotion of love generates certain brain patterns and chemical reactions in a person. If these patterns are determined and a means to test them is fairly reliable then it would be a fairly straight forward thing to do really. Just like proving anger or joy. And it would come out as tons of raw data not inferences or “beliefs�. This would be your measurable scientific proof. Reams of it.

I think he might say something like "I don't believe there is a God, because the evidence for it is not convincing enough." (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Gray M!) IOW, he has come to a conclusion based on available evidence; not necessarily all the evidence that he would desire, or even the type of evidence he would desire. And I also think that he would most probably change his opinion if he discovered evidence that was compelling enough.

Which would make him a temporary atheist which to me is borderline agnostic. I mean how can you say ok the Truth is X until Im shown its Y. then when things are Y ill happily and completely change my belief system. I mean why not just say well I have not yet been able to determine if things are X or Y or MJX6-delta-omega for that matter. So im gonna stay right here open minded till I find out or I die. Just because I MAY not ever be able to know god in a provable sense DOESN’T mean god doesn’t exist. Just because fungus cant comprehend our thoughts doesn’t mean we don’t exist. Atheists believe god doesn’t exist. This assumes we are powerful enough to understand the mind of god. Presupposition and fallacy in my opinion.

I don't KNOW that there is a God, either, at least in the sense that I would like to know

so then would you call yourself a skeptical Christian then? No I don’t think you are from my observations. You have no evidence for it but you still believe whole heartedly. Ill let you label what you are yourself though. I wouldn’t deem to tell you what that makes you. And what you feel your spirituality is.

By the way some Christians say they DO have evidence of god. Voices. Signs. Things like this. Where is Lief lately?

the lack of evidence is "strong" enough to where he has concluded that he will call himself an atheist.

but how can he possibly KNOW what god IS. If you conclude that god does not exist you are saying well since god can only fit in this space and he doesn’t appear to then its unlikely hes there at all. * puts on atheist hat *

Neither one of us have "blind faith" in our beliefs

faith isn’t a part of your belief system? What exactly would be the difference between “faith� and “blind faith�?

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Please forgive me for jumping in... I would say that what is meant by “blind faith� is a faith that is not thought out, or does not take into account everyday human experience. Faith, however, takes into account our everyday experiences, to include what we can know scientifically about the world around us. In fact, it depends on a dialogue between sense perception, council or advice from others such as teachers or experts, and reason in the form of induction and deduction. A belief that does not stand up under the pressure of reasoned investigation would be blind.

--Dave

[Rían]

Thanks for jumping in, Dave - I like that answer - I'll go with that

Blind faith is basically choosing to think something is true without having thought it through. I do NOT have blind faith that Christianity is true. I have a belief, or faith, based on thought and reasoned evaluation of the available evidence, that Christianity is true. The Bible itself calls on us to be able to give REASONS for our faith. It does NOT call us to have an unthinking faith, at least anywhere that I've seen in the last 30 years of study

I think the whole "blind faith" thing was a fad that blew things all out of proportion. A small amount of doubt is, I think, a reasonable and healthy thing to have. The whole "blind faith" movement basically said "if a little is good, a lot is better!" and foolishly made the conclusion that saying you believe something without thinking it through was a VIRTUE. Nowhere do I see this supposed "virtue" in the Bible. What I do see, though, is the idea that if someone has proved themselves trustworthy over and over, including God, then it is a REASONABLE faith to trust His word in some areas that you may not completely understand. But that's only IF your reason has supported the vast amount of your beliefs first, IMO.

Altho I can't know my husband loves me in a scientific sense (see below before you comment on this), given the available evidence, it is a REASONABLE belief for me to have that he does love me; in fact, it would be irrational to think otherwise. So yes, there is a small area of doubt, but it is RATIONAL for me to hold the belief that he loves me. And in the same way, I think that altho there is a small amount of doubt about the existence of God, that given the evidence that I've seen, it's RATIONAL to conclude that he exists, esp. because the alternatives are very IRRATIONAL compared to what I've seen.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
How do you know it cannot be proved?

You go ahead and try to prove either side to me, honey!

this I think would be easier to prove. The emotion of love generates certain brain patterns and chemical reactions in a person. If these patterns are determined and a means to test them is fairly reliable then it would be a fairly straight forward thing to do really. Just like proving anger or joy. And it would come out as tons of raw data not inferences or “beliefs�. This would be your measurable scientific proof. Reams of it.

Pardon my French, but - bull pucky! What brain pattern does the emotion of love generate? I love my husband (you'll have to take my word for that, BTW, since there is no way to prove it scientifically ) - I get mad at him, I'm happy around him, I am sad with him, I laugh hysterically with him, I'm anxious about him, I get, um, amorous with him, etc and etc and etc. Which one shows love? How can you tell the difference between me being angry with him because I love him (e.g., if he foolishly risked his life for something not worth it) and me being angry with him if I DIDN'T love him?

Which would make him a temporary atheist which to me is borderline agnostic. I mean how can you say ok the Truth is X until Im shown its Y. then when things are Y ill happily and completely change my belief system. I mean why not just say well I have not yet been able to determine if things are X or Y or MJX6-delta-omega for that matter. So im gonna stay right here open minded till I find out or I die. Just because I MAY not ever be able to know god in a provable sense DOESN’T mean god doesn’t exist. Just because fungus cant comprehend our thoughts doesn’t mean we don’t exist.

You just don't seem to get what I'm saying. Both GrayMouser and I are saying that altho the evidence is not utterly and entirely conclusive, it is CONCLUSIVE ENOUGH for us to have concluded that our respective beliefs are right. Do you believe that I am a human woman? What if I am a male monkey that can type? Is the evidence conclusive enough for you to believe that, at least, I'm human, and very possibly that I'm female, too? Is that a RATIONAL belief for you to have, even though the evidence will never be CONCLUSIVE for you? Of course it's a rational belief, despite the fact that the evidence will never be conclusive.

Now I can't speak for Graymouser, but for me, because Christianity requires ACTION, then IF I believe that the evidence is strong enough to support Christianity, I therefore need to CHOOSE to either ignore the evidence and stay in a state of limbo (This might be true, but it might be false; and THIS might be true but it might be false, etc.), or ACT on my evaluation of the evidence and CHOOSE to live the Christian lifestyle.

Atheists believe god doesn’t exist. This assumes we are powerful enough to understand the mind of god. Presupposition and fallacy in my opinion.

GrayMouser, care to take this one on?

Why do we have to "understand the mind of god" to know if he exists?

so then would you call yourself a skeptical Christian then? No I don’t think you are from my observations. You have no evidence for it but you still believe whole heartedly. Ill let you label what you are yourself though. I wouldn’t deem to tell you what that makes you. And what you feel your spirituality is.

No, I would call myself a human Christian and I DO have evidence for it, some of which I'll get into in the homosexual thread. Note "evidence", not "proof". Please stop saying that I have no evidence; it's untrue. And I hope you'll stop saying that I don't think, or I'll post some more "thinking points" over in the other thread and bug you till YOU think about them, as I have

By the way some Christians say they DO have evidence of god. Voices. Signs. Things like this. Where is Lief lately?

I don't know; I miss him. I have evidence of God, too, but not what you would call "proof".

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
[B]

Which would make him a temporary atheist which to me is borderline agnostic. I mean how can you say ok the Truth is X until Im shown its Y. then when things are Y ill happily and completely change my belief system. I mean why not just say well I have not yet been able to determine if things are X or Y or MJX6-delta-omega for that matter. So im gonna stay right here open minded till I find out or I die. Just because I MAY not ever be able to know god in a provable sense DOESN’T mean god doesn’t exist. Just because fungus cant comprehend our thoughts doesn’t mean we don’t exist. Atheists believe god doesn’t exist. This assumes we are powerful enough to understand the mind of god. Presupposition and fallacy in my opinion.

but how can he possibly KNOW what god IS. If you conclude that god does not exist you are saying well since god can only fit in this space and he doesn’t appear to then its unlikely hes there at all. * puts on atheist hat *


[B]

No, it means that I think I understand what the word "God" in Western thought , at least, means, and that I find no evidence that such a Being exists.

Now, you may have a different definition of God than is commonly used-some people define God as all that is, or Universal Spiritual Feeling, or the Tao- tell me what you mean, and I'll give you my opinion.

If you're saying that there might be Something that some people at some time might call God- well, Ok, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for something a little more specific.

I stopped calling myself an agnostic based on the Big Purple Monster test.

Is there a Big Purple Monster hiding in your closet? How do you know?

An agnostic on the issue of BPMs would say "I don't know, let me go check."

Me , being an a-BPMist, would say "There has been no credible evidence presented of a BPM in my closet, therefore considering the unlikeliness of the explanation for the evidence- noises,creaking etc. - and the greater likelihood of alternate explanations, I say that I don't believe in the BPM."

I go to the closet and AAAAaaaaHHH!!.

I'm not saying that it's impossible that there is a BPM in the closet- or aliens on the Dark Side of the Moon, or anything else you care to believe in- just bring out the evidence and let's judge.

[brownjenkins]

i'm an ecclectic athiest... i don't believe there is a god, but i think many good things have been written in his name... buddhist teachings being some of my favorite

The greatest achievement is selflessness.
The greatest worth is self-mastery.
The greatest quality is seeking to serve others.
The greatest precept is continual awareness.
The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything.
The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds ways.
The greatest magic is transmuting the passions.
The greatest generosity is non-attachment.
The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind.
The greatest patience is humility.
The greatest effort is not concerned with results.
The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go.
The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances.
Atisha

[Rían]

I like some things about Buddhism, too, but the thing I don't like, and I find to be contrary to what we find in life, is the lack of a strong good. The whole idea of the 4 Noble Truths seems to be to escape suffering by eliminating/suppressing craving (truth #3). But what gets thrown out with the bad is the good - IOW, it is GOOD to desire right things in a right way (i.e., not a way that is harmful to others), whether for yourself or for others, and to desire them strongly.

One of the things I love in Tolkien's writing is the strong element of positive good. That's also one of the things I love in Christianity. Tolkien's heros are not wimpy or passive, even the ones that the world would call "insignificant", like Frodo. Christianity is not wimpy or passive, either. It is strongly good, and offers strong joy and love, and that's why it's strongly against evil.

I just don't see this element in Buddhism, and frankly have no desire for nirvana, if it is just a place where there is no suffering, but also no joy. From what I can tell, Buddha himself never described nirvana, either - he just described how to avoid suffering in this life. But I think Buddha was right in much of his ethical teaching and the idea that selfish desire causes suffering. But all that is right in Buddhism is also contained in Christianity, IMO, along with the element of strong good and joy.

[Rían]

For example, some thoughts from reading your sig:

"The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind. "
This seems to me to be only self-centered. Contrast with Christianity's strong love of loving your neighbor as yourself, considering others as more important than yourself (in a proper way - i.e., you are not trash or anything like that, but it is good to sometimes even deny yourself somewhat in order to give to another), and things like that. Peace is a RESULT of loving and obeying God, tho.

"The greatest effort is not concerned with results. "
Christianity is very results-oriented, but also very heart-oriented. One goal is to help the poor - well, if you want to, but don't make the effort to do it, then the result is that you DON'T help the poor. You need to love the poor and care about their distress enough to make the result happen. But the wrong heart attitude of helping the poor only so other people think you're good is SEVERELY spoken against in Scripture.

"The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go. "
But I thought you valued reason, jenkins!


I don't mean to pick on you at all - just wanted to share some thoughts. Buddhist thought IS extremely appealing in this painful world - there's something very soothing about it - but upon reflection, it seems to lack the necessary strength to deal with reality, and lacks the joy that Christianity has in abundance. Only MHO, tho

[brownjenkins]

i agree in part... which is why i am not a Buddhist... i like their worldview and general openess though... one of the world's more tolerant religions... also the idea that true happiness comes from within, as opposed to some external force

but a result of tolerance can often be oppression, and i'm much to strong-willed to actually embrace all the buddhist ideals

for me joy comes from my friends, my family, my passions... ultimately the whole god thing is somewhat irrelavant, i enjoy debating about it, but it's just philosophy for me... day to day i try to judge everyone and everything at face value ~ and keep an open enough mind to realize that my initial reactions may be wrong

[brownjenkins]

The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind.

another way to look at it... you must be at peace with yourself and learn to love yourself, before you can truly love others... many people sacrifice themselves because they have lost that respect for self, and feel they can regain it by sacrifice... this too can be selfish... for a truly satisfied individual, there is no sacrifice, the good of the act outweighs anything you might deny yourself

to bring it back to tolkien, i always saw some buddhist traits on Tom Bombadil... he was perfectly at peace with himself and his surroundings... he needed nothing outside his simple existance, even the great ring of power... he loved to help, yet did not feel a need to help... it was simply second nature... he did not even hate his enemies, if you can even call them that... and it would be hard to argue that he was not happy or full of passion

The greatest effort is not concerned with results.

to do good is instinct, not a function of the end game... or what one is expected to do

"The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go."
But I thought you valued reason, jenkins!

reason can only take you so far... in the end reality is what you believe it to be

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

quote:

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
How do you know it cannot be proved?


You go ahead and try to prove either side to me, honey!

But that’s not answering my question! I don’t think I can prove it but im asking how does one KNOW it CANT be proved? And anyway isn’t that a silly thing for a Christian to ask an agnostic?

What brain pattern does the emotion of love generate?

why are you asking me? ask a neurologist or something. Why CANT the brain make certain patterns when the body its attached to is experiencing love? I hardly think that’s very far fetched. If you don’t like the word “love� attached to something observable biologically then call it something else. I don’t care.

How can you tell the difference between me being angry with him because I love him (e.g., if he foolishly risked his life for something not worth it) and me being angry with him if I DIDN'T love him?

there could be a steady state level of brain patterns/hormones/whatever that could be easily measurable. This would appear like a specific pattern among many like on a spectroscopy read out or something. Its not hard to tease out different things on a molecular level using the right measurements. Wed have to set up a population study. A control group of “non lovers� and a population group of couples who have been together a while or perhaps newlyweds. Would be cool to do. And not too hard. Now as to if we have the technology to do this well Im not sure. Youd have to ask someone in that arena.

You just don't seem to get what I'm saying. Both GrayMouser and I are saying that altho the evidence is not utterly and entirely conclusive, it is CONCLUSIVE ENOUGH for us to have concluded that our respective beliefs are right.

define for me the line at which something becomes “conclusive enough�.

Do you believe that I am a human woman? What if I am a male monkey that can type?

allow me to sample your dna and we can determine this quite quickly.

Now I can't speak for Graymouser, but for me, because Christianity requires ACTION, then IF I believe that the evidence is strong enough to support Christianity, I therefore need to CHOOSE to either ignore the evidence and stay in a state of limbo (This might be true, but it might be false; and THIS might be true but it might be false, etc.), or ACT on my evaluation of the evidence and CHOOSE to live the Christian lifestyle.

if you lacked a sense that didn’t allow you to observe something that was true would it not be true? This follows the same logic. Since algae cannot comprehend us is it ok for algae to be sure we don’t exist? (Im speaking more from the atheist point of view here).

Why do we have to "understand the mind of god" to know if he exists?

please approach the term “god� in a general way in this discussion and not limited to the Christian perspective on such. If we cant understand what a god is simply because of its complexity and the limitations of our mind then how can we know this god exists? If we cant detect something that is completely invisible in every way (not just sight) to us then how can we ever know it exists? BUT if we eventually find god somewhere in the equation then why is it we CANT know it exists?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
No, it means that I think I understand what the word "God" in Western thought , at least, means, and that I find no evidence that such a Being exists.

so an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in the Christian god then?

Now, you may have a different definition of God than is commonly used-some people define God as all that is, or Universal Spiritual Feeling, or the Tao- tell me what you mean, and I'll give you my opinion.

when I speak of god I speak of a creative force I don’t understand. Couldn’t really give you specifics because of course I don’t understand it. But generally god could be “all of the above� for lack of a better description. I really would hate, however, to line item every conceivable god known to man and every metaphysical extension of the unknown creative force that has intreagued humanity since our genesis (woops! ) and go through them one by one with you so you could check off which ones you believe are bunk and which ones pass. God is an esoteric term to me. Its not rigid and specific. I think that’s part of the whole problem here. We are trying to use our human cognitive skills to approach something that is beyond that. Perhaps the only way to approach it is with mathematics if it all.

I stopped calling myself an agnostic based on the Big Purple Monster test.

Is there a Big Purple Monster hiding in your closet? How do you know?

An agnostic on the issue of BPMs would say "I don't know, let me go check."

So god is a big purple monster? We could start a cult of barney. Or maybe not…

but anyway what if I invent something next week that allows you to detect the presence of your big purple monster. It was just unobservable all this time because we couldn’t SEE it. But perhaps certain people had an innate ability to SENSE it somehow without being sure exactly how or what it was and so it entered into our cultural lexicon as a “big purple monster� which was in fact an anthropomorphism of what it truly was (which was more complex and perhaps not totally comprehendible for us) because that’s what we humans do to things we don’t quite understand. We stick a human like (or at least an animal like) face on it so it makes sense to our brain. Its human nature.

I go to the closet and AAAAaaaaHHH!!.

now IF you were to somehow run into one would you then no longer be an atheist? Would you instantly become a believer? Would your atheist ideas then suddenly be wrong? Or would they still apply?

I'm not saying that it's impossible that there is a BPM in the closet- or aliens on the Dark Side of the Moon, or anything else you care to believe in- just bring out the evidence and let's judge.

well yeah that’s exactly what I was getting at with the above post. This makes you in my eyes a selective atheist. Which is more or less an agnostic equivalent. I don’t really get the distinction. Also this doesn’t allow for something to exist if it is beyond our ability to comprehend. It’s the “if I don’t get it it cant be� approach.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

"Just because fungus cant comprehend our thoughts doesn’t mean we don’t exist."

Great quote.

Lief's been emailing me pretty regularly, but I haven't seen him on the Moot.

[Lief Erikson]

Hello.

[Lief Erikson]

Very amusing. This is the first day in weeks probably that I've been to General Messages, and I just happen to come right on cue.

It's very late, so I don't have time to tackle this thread again at this moment. At a later date I'll probably rejoin . Perhaps coming back with both cannons blazing (bringing that information I promised on the unlikeliness of the creation of life) .

Insidious Rex, it's good to see you here! Won't bore you at the moment with more tales of spiritual contact, never fear. I'll ask though, what reasons do you have for believing God is the way you describe him to be?

By the way, has anyone answered all the statements about God and Christianity that follow all of your posts, yet?

(Makes a note of the page number)

Hi RÃ*an! I actually have been back in Entmoot for about four days in a row, now. I've been focused primarily in the RPG Forum and the Writing Forum until tonight. The debates here tend to go very deep, so I have been being cautious about getting deep into one. I might return to General Messages off and on, but I'm still primarily focused on writing right now.

BUT if we eventually find god somewhere in the equation then why is it we CANT know it exists?

It would be nigh impossibly hard. It would be impossible, from the Christian standpoint, to find him in a mathematical equation. But even if you could find any God in such a one, it would be extremely difficult to ascertain it's God you're detecting and not some other part of the nature that surrounds us.