• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why do people believe in God?

The mistake you keep making is that no one is legitimizing anything but you. You are the one legitimizing hate, note me. The underlying reasons for things involving humans in particular are not that simple, or at least not as simple as you would like them to be.

How have I legitimized hate? I'm not the one with the blinders on and stopping short with the excuses designed to mask 9/11 or Hitler's rage against Jews.

Nothing is "that simple," which is why I have produced deeper fuel. These things are certianly more complex than the practical excuses you are accepting.
 
I'm just wondering why people choose to "believe" in a person or figure who has no evidence of existing? Why are religious people not considered crazy? What's the difference between hallucinating and seeing someone who isn't there and saying you can feel God is with you. Why is Greek Mythology labeled by society as false but Christianity or Islam isn't? I just don't understand why you would have faith in an unproven thing.

I think the majority of people are brainwashed when they are very tiny, so young that they have not yet gained the ability to discriminate. It can be hard letting go of it completely. I know it took me ages and I gave up believing in Christianity when I was 11. At times for a long time I still feared the 'wrath of God' despite this being completely irrational.

In religions which stress the spiritual rather that doctrine, it is based on personal experience. 'God' or spirituality being a name for an experience which is different to the usual based on practice. Good counselling such as one would get from a good Rogerian counsellor, getting you in touch with your inner feeling self and inner resources would do the same with no dogma at all....but it still would be living on a different dimension to most people and would have highs.

Faith, I think comes from experience, so it is not so blind - oh and I don't really have much faith at the moment but at times I did get into this way of working and it was a ball - experienced without dogma! ;)
 
Alright. Seeing as how the burden of proof lies with you, be my guest and prove your faith. I won't hold my breath.

Many people prove that God exists or that their faith is not in vain by killing in his name. Christians and Muslims have spent centuries "proving" that God exists to others and have been mocked for it. Today, there are no Christian armies on the march trying to prove anything, yet Christians are constantly being mocked for their beliefs by non-believers. Who's better than who?
 
Many people prove that God exists or that their faith is not in vain by killing in his name. Christians and Muslims have spent centuries "proving" that God exists to others and have been mocked for it. Today, there are no Christian armies on the march trying to prove anything, yet Christians are constantly being mocked for their beliefs by non-believers. Who's better than who?

I am. Now back to my original request for proof, if you will.
 
Why is it that some people think religious belief should garner more respect than any other belief?

Depends on the background. This entire world has been shaped by religion. The entire Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) goes back to Gilgamesh and the Mesopatamians (the first civilization in history).

Given the friction between the religions, the adherents of each will insist on their's as being true. This has more to do about self identity than it does about the actual religion. Do you think Islamic extremists are more concerned with your soul than they are about adding to the numbers so as to further legitimize their identities? Is a Christian church stronger when it has a full house or a only a few people inside?

The Islamic and Christian faiths have instigated (or was at the center) so much violence through history, because they are both mandated to spread. This is direct conflict of each other's prescriptions. Judaism has the upper hand in this department because Jews are "Chosen," therefore there is no spreading (either by military force or a knock on your door).

But because of this competition for souls between the latter two, history has developed a sense of superiority from each. Jews are the original and are special enough to have been chosen. Their history also suggests a more special station over others. In the end, if religions compete, then so do their citizens.
 
Last edited:
I am. Now back to my original request for proof, if you will.

You will never find or be given "proof." And if you pressure people to prove their faith to you, then you are no better than those who seek to force their faith upon you. You are missing the point. Ever read Gilgamesh?
 
Last edited:
You will never find or be given "proof." And if you pressure people to prove their faith to you, then you are no better than those who seek to force their faith upon you. You are missing the point. Ever read Gilgamesh?

No, you are missing the point. The burden of proof lies with you. If you cannot provide sufficient proof, then you cannot justify your faith.
 
No, you are missing the point. The burden of proof lies with you. If you cannot provide sufficient proof, then you cannot justify your faith.

I don't believe anybody is trying to justify their faith. They merely have it while you blast them for having it. The fact that you have no faith is of no consequence. The danger lies when people of faith feel that they must prove it or defend it. According to history, this means violence. Why not leave it alone? You....are....missing....the ....point.....have you ever read Gilgamesh?
 
I don't believe anybody is trying to justify their faith. They merely have it while you blast them for having it. The fact that you have no faith is of no consequence. The danger lies when people of faith feel that they must prove it or defend it. According to history, this means violence. Why not leave it alone? You....are....missing....the ....point.

Then don't post in the thread if you aren't willing to justify or debate it.

Do you realize how destructive that reasoning can be?
"The danger lies when people of faith feel that they must prove it or defend it."
You're saying that people should believe what they believe because they believe it, and questioning it is wrong.
 
You will never find or be given "proof." And if you pressure people to prove their faith to you, then you are no better than those who seek to force their faith upon you. You are missing the point. Ever read Gilgamesh?

I don't agree with you often sir, but when I do, I agree a whole lot.
 
You will never find or be given "proof." And if you pressure people to prove their faith to you, then you are no better than those who seek to force their faith upon you. You are missing the point. Ever read Gilgamesh?

"Pressuring people to prove their faith." = "Asking people, who come into a thread voluntarily, if they can give a rational reason for their faith." What's wrong with asking questions?
 
Yet no one here is willing or able to explain the logic. Theists have only CLAIMED it is more logical. They have yet to DEMONSTRATE their claim as true.

Care to try?

:shrug: i'd give it a go, certainly. but not until tomorrow; 5 am comes early :)

I meant why should beliefs that are about religion get more respect than beliefs that aren't?

I ask only that materialists keep the same open mind that they demand of the theists, which is precisely that we give equal consideration to both possibilities based on the relative evidence that points to either conclusion. which leads us right into my next point which is....

Alright. Seeing as how the burden of proof lies with you.

no, it doesn't. good logic does not preselect it's conclusion and hold it against all comers, it tests and weighs the evidence and applies reason to select the most likely conclusion. the burden of proof is no more with me to demonstrate a theistic universe than it is with you to demonstrate a materialist one.
 
That argument from design has long been refuted.
Argument from design - Iron Chariots Wiki

Do you care to debate the validity of the argument Ahlevah?

No, not really. (On the other hand, if you want to start a thread debating the validity of the argument that there is no God, I might indulge you. ;))

My post was a response to the OP's question: "I'm just wondering why people choose to 'believe' in a person or figure who has no evidence of existing?" To the best of my knowledge, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was not crazy or on mushrooms when he wrote his essay. He never claimed to have seen God, or presented any empirical evidence that God exists. In no manner was his argument an attempt to "prove" the existence of God. Rousseau was just a simple Enlightenment philosopher who made a reasoned statement of belief in the existence of a higher being--a profession of faith, as it were, as the the title of his essay suggests.
 
:shrug: i'd give it a go, certainly. but not until tomorrow; 5 am comes early :)



I ask only that materialists keep the same open mind that they demand of the theists, which is precisely that we give equal consideration to both possibilities based on the relative evidence that points to either conclusion. which leads us right into my next point which is....



no, it doesn't. good logic does not preselect it's conclusion and hold it against all comers, it tests and weighs the evidence and applies reason to select the most likely conclusion. the burden of proof is no more with me to demonstrate a theistic universe than it is with you to demonstrate a materialist one.
We haven't been trying to demonstrate a materialist universe, everyone already knows that the universe has matter, physical laws, etc. The burden is on you to show that there is something more.
 
So first the accusation of liar. After checking you, you accuse me of contradiction. I'm not trying to be contradictory and I don't believe there is one. One only has to apply some thought...

You did lie and you are contradicting yourself. I have already shown this and you have not addressed it.

* The Nazi machine had nothing to do with religion, which is why more than Jews were targetted. Furthermore, there was no religious tension between the governments involved.

- However -

* It was about religion when it came to the Jews. One would have to believe that every Nazi believed that every single Jew was a communist in order to satisfy the practical excuses he designed for future people like you to put forth. Centuries of blaming Jews for spoiled water, black death, and anything else have always been mere excuses for deeper hatreds. They were merely excuses. Hitler's deep resentment and hatreds towards Jews was about far more than what he wanted you to believe. Hatred towards Jews, especially by Christians, always goes back to the accusing question, "who killed Christ?"

As soon as you post some prof of this you may have a point. I have already done so showing this is not true.

Oh, come now. You're smarter than this right? 9/11 was about personal religious securities wrapped around practical excuses for those who needed to understand. And the Nazi scourge against Jews was about religious persecution. Or was it simply because centuries of hating Jews was about secretly hating the letter "J?"

Now what was that you were saying?

There is a reason religious extremists and monsters offer practical reasons for their violence. It's so practical people can understand. The KKK have offered up crime, property value, no will to educate, and even that blacks are organizing to end the white race. All these practical excuses for scholars and idiots to ponder merely mask the truth. Underneath these practical reasons, which will recruit far more than the truth will, is simple racism and a traditional groomed hatred.

You consider those excuses practical? Hmmmm?

Osama Bin Laden's movement, while you insist has little to do with religion, saturates his practical excuses with religious rhetoric and apocalyptic visions. If his excuse about starving children in Iraq were real, why would he be a guest of bashir as he slaughtered Muslim people (to include children) in Sudan?

If his excuse that we support Israel were real, then he wouldn't have wholeheartedly accepted our support against the Soviets. But what is the theme throughout his preachings and letters to the western world? Aside from practical BS for the ignorant to eat up, there is religious over tones and zealousy. He is a student of Qutbism and excuses are all they look for.

It is a quest for power. Islam in and of itself is an excuse as I said. It is also as I have shown involves much more than just religion.

Again you have really not put forth anything aside of lip service.

Hitler? Same thing. He used practical excuses just like Europeans had done with Jews for centuries and centuries and he rallied the troops around it. Under the Boslhevik, communist, and lame excuses involving the First World War, was a simple hatred of Jews. He persecuted them as sure as Bin Laden seeks his God's favor.

And it had nothing as you just stated to do with religion.

And the Nazi scourge against Jews was about religious persecution. Or was it simply because centuries of hating Jews was about secretly hating the letter "J?"

He used practical excuses just like Europeans had done with Jews for centuries and centuries and he rallied the troops around it. Under the Boslhevik, communist, and lame excuses involving the First World War, was a simple hatred of Jews.

What? No religious persecution?

Again I ask which is it?
 
How have I legitimized hate? I'm not the one with the blinders on and stopping short with the excuses designed to mask 9/11 or Hitler's rage against Jews.

Nothing is "that simple," which is why I have produced deeper fuel. These things are certianly more complex than the practical excuses you are accepting.

AGAIN:

The mistake you keep making is that no one is legitimizing anything but you. You are the one legitimizing hate, note me. The underlying reasons for things involving humans in particular are not that simple, or at least not as simple as you would like them to be.

Their is a difference between what you call a "practical excuse" and "the actual reason."
 
I ask only that materialists keep the same open mind that they demand of the theists, which is precisely that we give equal consideration to both possibilities based on the relative evidence that points to either conclusion. which leads us right into my next point which is....

I have an open mind. I'm open to reassessing my political views, I'm open to deism, atheism, and agnosticism, I would go as far to say that I'm open to any position, world view, philosophy, or mindset that can be argued successfully against me using objective evidence, logic, and rational thinking. What I am not open to is silly conclusions based on nothing but emotions, if even that.
You speak of relative evidence? What evidence is there pointing to the validity of any religion?
Religion:
- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
- the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

So, then. Religion is based on faith. We can argue semantics all day, but I think we're on the same page here. A superhuman agency transcends the laws of nature, therefore it cannot be proven with what knowledge we have today.

Faith:
- belief that is not based on proof
- belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

So then, religion does not rest on evidence or proof of any sort.

no, it doesn't. good logic does not preselect it's conclusion and hold it against all comers, it tests and weighs the evidence and applies reason to select the most likely conclusion. the burden of proof is no more with me to demonstrate a theistic universe than it is with you to demonstrate a materialist one.

You make the outlandish claim, you provide proof. That's how the system works. The burden of proof is on you, my friend. But to humor you, allow me to prove a materialist universe real quick. Do you feel that mouse you're grasping right now? Materialistic. K, done. Your turn.

We haven't been trying to demonstrate a materialist universe, everyone already knows that the universe has matter, physical laws, etc. The burden is on you to show that there is something more.

Eeeeeexactly.
 
Then don't post in the thread if you aren't willing to justify or debate it.

This is exactly why you are missing the point. I am attempting to justify why people believe in God, but it appears that there is no debate with you on this. I have offered some psychological reasoning behind people's beliefs, but you continue to behave as if you are waiting for a picture of God caught pulling a rabbit out of a hat. The real question here may be “why do you need to encourage that there is no God to others?”
Proof of God is not provable. That is why it is called faith. Can you prove, without opening the door, that there is a chair behind that door? Merely telling me won’t suffice. Of course, you only need to open the door, right? Well, "proof" of God requires death. One must die in order to "prove" it even to himself. Therefore insisting on proof from others is senseless. Nobody’s willing to open the door and then haunt you.

Do you realize how destructive that reasoning can be?
"The danger lies when people of faith feel that they must prove it or defend it."
You're saying that people should believe what they believe because they believe it, and questioning it is wrong.

Um no. Allow me to explain further....

* People of faith are harmless unless they develop a sense of having to spread and strengthen in number. If more people believe then one's sense of identity becomes validated. But, if one has to do this, then he is absent of true faith to begin with. I am talking about the average religious terrorist or religious organization/army in history. He merely validates his own lack of faith.

* What is wrong is an outsider insisting that others question their internal beliefs until the individual feels that he is being attacked. This is why people develop a sense of having to "defend" God. However, far from God needing a man to defend him, the individual is only seeking to defend his personal identity and using God in order to rally others. Once again, I am talking about the average religious terrorist or religious organization/army in history.

Of course far from being the most dangerous are the wacked out cults who merely wind up committing suicide over their beliefs. But doesn't this leave more Kool-Aid for the rest of anyway?

People should always question their beliefs. This is precisely why Christianity went through a reformation and came out all the more healthier for it. There is an entire region called the Middle East that is struggling right now over faith and religious prescription. It is going on between Cairo and Islamabad. My point here is that people in the West have the luxury of education and the free flow of information to assist them in their questioning of beliefs. What does the Middle East have? Questioning can be dangerous too. But it is nobody else's business to force them to. Ever heard of religious oppression? It has occurred in history far more than religious aggression by other religions (or sects of the same) or by atheist mockeries. Though it is dismissed by those who wish that the religious of history be the true monsters. Attempting to “prove” that God doesn’t exist at the expense of believers is also dangerous.
 
"Pressuring people to prove their faith." = "Asking people, who come into a thread voluntarily, if they can give a rational reason for their faith." What's wrong with asking questions?

I don't believe you or others are as innocent as simply asking questions. You are mocking.
 
You did lie and you are contradicting yourself. I have already shown this and you have not addressed it.

I proved to you your mistake. I showed you my original post, which overlooked. Guess what that means....I addressed it. Here...I'll address it again.....

Post 299: "It may interest those individuals to know that the 20th century was the most violent in history and most of it had nothing to do with religion."

After showing you this, I went on to state the meaning of this, which is common sense to most. I also went on to explain how Jews weren't simply hated for the practical reasons you entertain. Were Jews hated down through history for their religion only for Hitler to decide that now it's all becayse they are communists? And all of Nazi Germany gave in to alternate reasons to hate them? You, of course, went on to protest your desires for me to be liar. Go ahead..accuse me of not addressing it again. Stop being childish.

As soon as you post some prof of this you may have a point.

I have a point because I don't have my head up my ass. Again, were Jews hated down through history becase of their religion only to have Hitler and the rest fo the Nazi clan change up and hate them for being "communists?" What seems likely to you?

But this brings up another thought I always have about your kind. You voice often enough about the sanctity of Palestine, while criticizing the evils of Israel. Your kind always seem to have to include others with Jews in regards to the Holocaust and insist on Jews being massacred for anything other than their religion. Is it because "victimhood" is preserved for Palestinians?


Now what was that you were saying?

What I'm still saying.


You consider those excuses practical? Hmmmm?

I seem to be talking above you. Let me give you some background:

Practical Terrorist: These are those who have earthly agendas. They seek to warn governments and seek change. These types can be dealt with and even rehabilitated. Examples are IRA, McVeigh,

Apocalyptic Terrorist: These are those who do not have earthly agendas. They seek to punish governments and people. This is where the suicide bombers and self-prescribed executioners of God are. They can not be rehabilitated without him acknowledging that his God is wrong. More often than not, he must be destroyed. Examples are Osama Bin Laden, Phillip II, and Thomas Muntzer.

Now, when people give you earthly reasons or excuses for their violence, it makes sense to people who have no religion or need simple reasons to understand. Apocalyptic Terrorists use practical reasons in order to recruit into the cause and to even entice as many weak minded fools as they can in to sympathizing with them. In the end, an Apocalytpic terrorist is defined by his actions, not his BS excuses.

Of course, this line gets crossed and nothing fits perfectly into position. But it is a working intel tool that helps us figure out what we are dealing with. Hitler was both apocalyptic and practical in his deeds. But you like hius practical excuses because it makes it simple and Jews seem less persecuted that way.


Again you have really not put forth anything aside of lip service.

I've put forth far more than you and there is no way you can pretend otherwise. Aside from a select Internet black and white about Hitler, have you really offered an actual thought into this beyond the surface? Read this...Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence

It's a start.


Again I ask which is it?

You are being obtuse on purpose. I thought you were smarter than this. I've answered this enough. Here goes again...

Germany's machine was about power and conquest. Had nothing to do with religion for the French, Poles, Brits, etc. However, their selection of Jews was basd on centuries of hatred. And why did all of Europe hate Jews? Poisoned wells? Disease? Black Death? Add the Bolshevik excuse you cling to and you have one more practical excuse that masks the truth. The one thing Jews throughout Europe and from generation to generation had with each other was that they were....Jews.
 
Last edited:
AGAIN:

The mistake you keep making is that no one is legitimizing anything but you. You are the one legitimizing hate, note me. The underlying reasons for things involving humans in particular are not that simple, or at least not as simple as you would like them to be.

At this point I have no idea what you are even talking about. What mistake? I am talking about the offenders (Hitler, Bin Laden, Thomas Muntzer, whoever). It is they that produce their excuses and seek legitimization. For the Apocalyptic, the practical excuses are designed for people like you who need to have a simple reason for the offense.

Bin Laden gave you something grounded. Something tangible you could get behind and sympathize with. In that case it was about foreign policy, starving children in Iraq, a base in Saudi Arabia, etc. All practical excuses to wage what he views as a holy war. A holy war that is rooted in Qutbism, which designs hate against our culture. With or without a base in Saudi Arabia, his kind were going to have their war sooner or later.

Despite the absolutely heavy religious rhetoric throughout his writings, you really think it had nothing to do with his religious cause? What if he stated only that he wanted to kill for God and gave no practical reason? Would as many people offer sympathy then? Of course, not. Hence, the practical excuses that are meant to entice the fools in and offer him legitimate griefs. This encourages recruits to his cause.

Their is a difference between what you call a "practical excuse" and "the actual reason."

Yeah, no ****. What do you think I've been trying to shove into your brain? I still don't think you get it. It takes study.

1) Practical deed = Practical excuse.

2) Apocalyptic deed = Practical excuse.

The first one rallies people. It shakes the institution and gathers sympathy. It is something that people can understand. It doesn't mean people necessarily get behind. But they do see the argument.

The second is twisted. It punishes, while giving people what they long for - understanding. It doesn't matter that they understand bull ****, only that they give legitimacy to what is really just a religious exercise. The religious around the world can identify this easier than those who mock religion. Do you really think that Muslims across the world can't see the religious steering wheel in Al-Queda's efforts? The West is different. Religious terrorists always seek ways to"legitmize" their deeds for the West by offering practical excuses. Always there is a hypocritical excuse. One only needs to identify the gross hypocracy I them to see through its use. I will ask you again...

1) How much could Bin Laden have cared about the starving Muslim children of Iraq if he was a guest of Bashir while he was slaughtering Muslims in Sudan?

2) How much could Bin Laden care about our support of Israel if he was more than pleased to accept our support against Soviets?

He is bull ****. Stripping away his practical excuses leaves him with his God and his religious fervor. He was a student of the brother of Sayyid Qutb. He wanted his war for God. A base in Saudi Arabia, among others, was just an excuse. But if you want it to be simple…cling to the excuses like you have in regards to Hitler. But if things are more complex like you state, then look deeper, like I do.
 
You can believe whatever you want.

Well isn't it obvious? Why else would the few of you insist so whole heartedly on what can't be given? It's an exercise of mockery. It's pretty simple to understand why people choose or are raised to believe in God. There's an entire history of tradition involved. Super divinity was quite probably created by early man to explain why the sun goes down at night. Did you know that the first civilization (Meopotamia) produced a story called the Epic of Gilgamesh and in it was a story about a flood, an ark, and even a couple birds released to find land? Sound familiar to Genesis? Anbother similarity is how the stories of Gilgamesh theme around lessons and questions of humanity. This is something understood by most because it is an ancient text. The Bible does the same, but is mocked for it's fantastical stories. People mock and state that it "must be taken literal," so as to enforce the ludicrousy. But Epic of Gilgamesh? We're talking two different religions with similar story lines. Same stuff, different respects. Is there a basic root of truth that only faith can realize? Thousands of years later, and you have traditions and civilizational habits that don't go away.

But this isn't good enough. You wish them to have to prove to you that God exists. What's the point if not to simply mock?
 
Last edited:
Why else would the few of you insist so whole heartedly on what can't be given?
Because others claim to know reality. They claim to know truth. That their beliefs are more than mere holy-book tales, imagination, opinion, hear-say, and conjecture. I challenge them to demonstrate that they speak truth.


It's an exercise of mockery.
It is an exercise in critical thinking.

It's pretty simple to understand why people choose or are raised to believe in God.
I disagree. The reasons are complex and unique to each. There may be similarities but the stories, the reasons, are usually unique.

There's an entire history of tradition involved. Super divinity was quite probably created by early man to explain why the sun goes down at night. Did you know that the first civilization (Meopotamia) produced a story called the Epic of Gilgamesh and in it was a story about a flood, an ark, and even a couple birds released to find land?
Yes. I am well aware. In fact it comes up in debate with theists every now and again.

Anbother similarity is how the stories of Gilgamesh theme around lessons and questions of humanity. This is something understood by most because it is an ancient text. The Bible does the same, but is mocked for it's fantastical stories. People mock and state that it "must be taken literal," so as to enforce the ludicrousy. But Epic of Gilgamesh? We're talking two different religions with similar story lines. Same stuff, different respects.
I find that interesting history. Not profound.

Is there a basic root of truth that only faith can realize?
Faith is an overly abused and vague word. I prefer people say what they mean directly. I'll assume you mean fervent belief.

To answer the question, I have yet to see truth from "faith". It provides comfort, security, perhaps hope. But not truth, not reality.

Thousands of years later, and you have traditions and civilizational habits that don't go away.
Is it surprising that a species repeats particular patterns of behavior? We aren't surprised that birds build nests around the world. Why should we be surprised that humans may have unique instincts, habits, and behaviors? The physical is not the only thing susceptible to evolution. Consciousness is as well.

You wish them to have to prove to you that God exists. What's the point if not to simply mock?
The truth has nothing to hide from investigation.
 
I'm just wondering why people choose to "believe" in a person or figure who has no evidence of existing? Why are religious people not considered crazy? What's the difference between hallucinating and seeing someone who isn't there and saying you can feel God is with you. Why is Greek Mythology labeled by society as false but Christianity or Islam isn't? I just don't understand why you would have faith in an unproven thing.
I know this is aimed at the Christian crowd, but I'll field it anyways, being a Pagan.

Explaining religious belief to someone who has none is like explaining the taste of a good steak to a vegetarian. With no common ground to stand on, there's very little to compare. Belief comes in it's own way.

Speaking personally, I would find it very difficult NOT to be, at bare minimum, spiritual. I've seen, felt, and experienced too many things in my life not to be. That is coupled with...a feeling, an instinct, I guess you could call it that there is more beyond what we can see. That, for many people, is enough to warrant some form of religious belief.
 
Back
Top Bottom