Ever since I was a child I found the idea of God to be ridiculous...

That was my favourite quote of the bible

I put no personal stock in the Bible. I am a Deist, not a Christian.
If we are to make the assumption that God did make the Universe, then we must also assume God existed before the Universe's creation. God cannot exist inside the Universe while the Universe does not exist yet. So, it is reasonable to assume that if God did not exist inside the Universe, then He must exist outside of it instead. Therefore, God would not be bound by the laws of the Universe since He is neither inside of it, nor a product of it.

Consider that most intellectuals and scientists agree that our knowledge of the Universe in which we live and how it truly works is very much like we are measuring the continent of North America with a meterstick. Also consider that perhaps certain things within this Universe are not the same elsewhere.

I have a very peculiar memory, lots of them actually, but I'm thinking about one now. I was in bible class, I must have been, oh, about 5 or 6, and the teacher asked, "Now tell me, why did Jesus die on the cross?"

To which I replied, "Here ye simpleton, and I shall grace you with a measure of redeeming wisdom - indeed you have purposed a delicate and interesting question, why must the son of God die to forgive us our sins? Truly the moral dilemma created by God could be better remedied than by physical self-harm? Alas, the aged truth is buried in your small-minded romanticism, so I doubt you shall ever overcome and see the dawn of the light that illuminates these words"

She then immediately grew horns, howled, and ripped my trousers plum off my bottom, and began vigorously jacking my tiny cock, much to the horror of all but one of my fellow students, whom had, after intently listening to my response, promptly sliced off her pinky finger and began drawing a pentagram with her blood.

Holy...

Okay. I understand there's a limit to what we can measure and understand, but that isn't an explanation as to how it's even possible to exist and not occupy time and/or space. What you have to offer is ifs and maybes, which isn't good enough for me. And given that the necessity of a god is by no means the scientific consesus means that so far, we've little logical need for a creator.
Also let me add that yes, it is possible for parts of universe to behave totally different when we aren't observing these parts, but we have no reason to assume this is the case and every reason to assume the opposite.

You know, I think that's one of the reasons I initially left religion. It wasn't until I went to college and took a several religious studies and theology courses they that I became interested in religion again. institutional churches aren't interested in any substantive discourse because they fear it might drive them away, but the lack of that is why I left in the first place.

Fuck it, I think we have our cuck of the year already.

A lot of scientific conjecture is based upon ifs and maybes, at least until they are tested. Unfortunately, we do not have the means to test these theories about the existence of a Creator, thus we must wait until the time comes that we are able to do so. Until then, we can only speculate.
It is clear that there are two possibilities regarding the Universe's existence. The first is that the Universe, and all matter and energy within, has always existed, moving through cycles of decay and renewal. I personally disagree with this theory, because both personal experience and my own views in regards to the complexity of the Universe suggest to me that it was not made by chance.
The second is that something or someone was responsible for the Universe's creation. Of course, that begs the question in the OP: What created the Creator? And as I said before, I do not believe it is necessary for there to be a creator's creator, for the fact that the concept of time may very well be a concept known only in this universe, and not beyond it.
Issues such as Biblical accuracy, Messianic prophecy, and even the personal nature of God as a benevolent being or not are best left to theologians. However, the question of God's existence is very much a scientific one, and should at least be considered as a plausible theory.

>Does this mean I am autistic?
No,

Your brain is either wired to experience religious feelings very strongly, or your brain is wired to not experience any religious feelings at all. Though most people fall somewhere in between those two extremes, you obviously fall on the hard end of that spectrum.

That's because probably no one ever explained the context and concepts related to God and religion.

Read this. It's a very good history of religion

Of course scientific conjecture is based on ifs and maybes, but there's a huge difference between conjecture and theory, and an even bigger difference between scientific conjecture and theistic conjecture. For now, at least.
And you're kind of wrong about decay and renewal. Decay yes, renewal, not really. So says entropy at least.
I'm very much aware, you disagree with the nonexistence of God, and that's okay. But what you should at least admit is that this is a personal bias. And, if we are to approach something logically, it is a good idea to try to ignore such biases.

>I am a Deist
This is the real autist.

I was raised agnostic and discovered mysticism after reading Descartes and Spinoza. Does that mean I'm autistic?

It's way too postmodern. Armstrong tries so hard to make the case for moral relativism that I really feel like slapping her face.

>I protect myself from eternal life after a wall of smug.
And when you mentally grow up, it may be late to find the true religion and practice it enough.

>Bait thread
>Christians taking the bait
Wew