[lamchopz]

I'm going to sit on the fence because it is exactly my position at the moment in regards to this topic. However, I do see both sides of the debate and so will voice my opinion here.

Firstly, in response to the recurrent argument that God decides to sit still while watching this world collapse, this little story will be of help:

The flood came and a religious man who had no way to escape was gradually sinking. A camel rider went past and offered help. The man refused and said: "No, thank you but God will come save me". So the rider left. Moments later, a person in a boat came and offered help. The man repeated the same statement and sank further. The person in the boat left. When the man was at the verge of dying, both the rider and the person in the boat came and offered to help. The man refused, believing that God would save him because he has done lots of good deeds all his life. He sank and died. When his soul was escorted to meet God, the man angrily said: "Why didn't you save me? All my life, all I've ever done is follow your guide and be good to this world". To which God replied: "I sent the camel rider to help you. I sent the person in the boat to help you. I even sent both the camel rider and the person in the boat back to help you. Yet you repeatedly refused. What would you have asked more of me?".

Secondly, I must make clear that I don't believe in any established religion because, as controversial as my thinking might be, I believe all religions as we see are creations of the brilliant minds of the past, namely those who wrote the holy books for their respective religions and created the doctrines by which the followers have kept to this day.

Thirdly, I believe in an unseen force. I am not stating that it is "God" (a notion which, if it means anything, means just that). I am saying that there is a something we don't yet know. Perhaps, at the end of the discovery road (if it ever ends), we will discover it and for all I know, it might be the "God" that some of us now strongly profess their faith in. By conceding that there is the existence of some higher being, I am granting the opportunity, to me perfectly vindicated, that there may be a "God". I don't deny that. What I want to clarify is that, as of now, so far as the evidence accumulates, there is no positive identification of the "God" or "Gods" that the religions out there have preached.

Fourthly, as beings with extraordinary capacities for logic and insights, we are entitled to formulating our own systems of beliefs, convictions and executions thereof. Privileged with those qualities, we have managed to break ourselves (e.g. through wars that purely sprang from political schisms) and also have achieved so much. It is true that the common (and also largely ridiculous) prediction shared by the many religions is that if you don't follow their God, you're going straight to Hell. It must be considered, however, that human beings, while capable of transcribing their thoughts into beliefs which they judge by invoking their own intelligence and conception of right and wrong, the problem lies in the difference in their abilities to interpret the "moral codes". Religions were established, I believe, to standardise a set of moral codes for all to follow. That is, religions were designed to keep peope from bad thoughts, which, without a formal and explicit system, would to the procurers be perfectly justified. The analogous example is the system in which we live with a stanard set of rules so everyone can follow, e.g. traffic rules.

Lastly, every belief sustains at least a flaw, even if it is supported by powerful scientific instruments. The reason why we are growing (in figurative terms) is due to the fact that we never stop asking. Aristotle asked and answered many of his own questions, many of which were wrong but at the time, they were beautiful conjectures and could not be wrong. With the advent of modern technology, we begin to assess situations using our own logical systems. To argue against a scientific theory, we use another theory which was more shown to be more concrete - more concrete, at least, during our life time. It eludes me, though, that a debate on deities can possibly be conducted fairly using the knowledge that we form by using our own observations and theories. The principal and underlying key that has maintained religions is that "God" created us, and therefore, has the power to create the laws themselves. By using our science to support/refute the existence of God, who supposedly crafted this science, is not conducive to progress. To further this point, consider that when Newton's laws came about, later the introduction of Maxwell's famous electromagnetic equations, the contemporary scientists actually believed that we knew everything there was to know, until Einstein came along, followed by the advent of quantum mechanics. The point is that our peception has a limit. By using knowledge within a limit to argue a point that is still outside the current limit of science is to me not feasible. I have seen a debate using the highly intricate Relativity and biological developments and the result is still a draw, at least, where I left it.

If I have to choose between science and Creationism, I will gladly pick science because Creationism, if popularised, will bring a demise to our advancements. To surmise the existence of a God, however, is largely a matter of belief and to me, is not the least convicing. To outright refuse the existence of a higher being is also a matter of belief and is not any more persuasive. The two beliefs can be backed up with science (yes, science) and still result in no victory for either side.

This is why I am tolerant of beliefs - everyone's entitled to his or her belief. To have me make a decision will require the eventuation of scientific studies which, in this life time, will most likely not be close to inventing a time machine (even though early promising sign has been sighted - quantum jump, anyone?). And since we can't convince each other to relinquish our own convictions, it's best to live in peace. It is much better than the crusades of the medieval ages, the religious persecutions that stain our hsitory, and perhaps more broadly, the wars of any rationale - religious or political, but in the end, it's political - that were the results of ideological differences, manifested through violence.

This is why I'm sitting on the fence in this issue. Life is too complex to evolve due to chance or life is just so wonderful because it miraculously evolved by chance. It's your take, and remember, it is just what we currently believe in.