I always want to know.....''were you there?''

The Bible arguments drive me crazy. Quoting Jesus has as much meaning as quoting Scarlett O'Hara.

Those arguing over the existence of God, both pro and con, are missing a few pertinent facts.

The meaning of the word “existence” is not clear. Our everyday notion of objective things existing in space and time is purely imaginative.

The nature of conscious awareness is a profound mystery. We think we know things, but what we know is known only superficially, based on a shallow artificial perception of reality.

There are some inexplicable questions about the nature of selfhood. Who or what is it that is arguing over the existence of God? If we can not answer that it seems premature to argue.

It is thought by many that it is possible to definitively prove or disprove assertions using logic, but every logical system rests on assumptions and definitions. What is true in one system might be false in another, or it could be meaningless or undecidable. To prove therefore, is merely to convince. A conviction or belief is merely an emotional response—a psychological state. There is no absolute truth in the realm of human intercourse.

My opinion is that we believe because of inner psychological needs. If you believe a statement is false, that is also a belief, and is based only on emotion. You might claim to be an impartial observer, standing by, awaiting evidence, but unless you are actively searching, your mind is made up and you are rejecting whatever evidence conflicts with your pre-decided world view, be it deism or physicalism.

In the face of the staggering implications of the mystery of existence, belief and disbelief seem like wildly inappropriate responses. More rational would be a sense of shock and awe along with ecstasy, appreciation and reverence.

Ironically the subgroup of evangelicals I belonged to explicitly preached against a reliance on personal experience. It mostly reflected a distaste for pentecostalism, as they felt people were going by personal subjective experience, which one is easily fooled by, rather than by the Bible. Of course, the personal experience of "being saved" or of god "answering" some prayer was somehow not a problem and a-o-k. And they never seemed to realize that the Bible, even if you treat it more literally, is unclear on most topics and that arriving at a "correct" interpretation is itself subjective and personal.

I regard all arguments for the existence of a deity to be equally absurd. I find none of those arguments to be annoying. I instead find all of them to be amusing: for me they all highlight the arrogance and mental insufficiency of those who make such claims.