[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

To which I preemptively responded:

In my opinion, religion in its ideal form does not claim to know or preach in the same way that science and engineering do, but rather to temper and remind people of what we do not know as tiny beings in the vast existence of the cosmos.

Petitio principii. Why does it necessarily take religion to remind people of what they do not yet know, when the same can be achieved by learning the extent of what we do know through scientific inquiry?

The whole idea of religion, then, is not to discover any hard facts, but to form a psychological basis for people to internalize so that they can better cope with said facts. The existence of religion and the concept of God are intertwined with, in my understanding, the very fact that we are at all self-aware (a concept which is in itself difficult if not impossible to define). Empiricism can explain everything that can be observed, from gravity to the chemical workings of the brain, but it cannot explain, in the end, why we have souls there at all to observe anything with. Nor could it ever hope to explain or encompass the breadth of matter, which appears to be infinite.

Again, petitio principii. On what basis do you make the statement that "souls" exist?

At some point, these mysteries escape the scope of human perception, and language, which forms the cornerstone of our science and rationality, is no longer effective in portraying them. In the past, the sky was the limit, since no one could hope to go beyond it to see what exactly was going on up there. Now, even as science advances, the very nature of being and its semantics are still in question.

Yet again, petitio principii. On what basis do you claim that faith can answer the questions science cannot?

There is supposedly a Buddhist saying that "Buddha is in the heart". If the soul cannot be discerned, then I would say that the divine truly does exist within this unknowable region.

Putting aside your petitio principii that a "soul" exists to be discerned, if you claim the divine is unknowable, then you must know that the "unknowable" exists....but to assert the existence of the unknowable is to claim knowledge of the unknowable, in which case, it cannot be unknowable. So, which is it?

Why must a god exist then, you say? Because there is order in the universe, and there would have to be some sort of "intelligence" behind the laws of matter.

Wonderful, the good old cosmological argument. Question: what created the "intelligence"?

It seems like you wanted an explanation on why God should exist. I have summarily provided that explanation.

Your explanation isn't anything I haven't heard before, and isn't any more successful at proving your points. Try again.