> > Maybe I'm missing the mark, but it struck me as an odd reason to believe.
>
> Maybe I should have said a little bit more with that but the line I was taking went along with the thoughts about people accepting or denying science based on where they stand. As stated in other posts, science can't prove or disprove God and, thus, it is not the basis for my viewpoint.
>
One thing I have already learned from this thread is to accept the fact that indeed science cannot prove or disprove God. That poses a problem, because I am of the opinion that it is only through a scientific mindset that anything can be proven. Concordantly, the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven at all. Thus, nobody can ever know for sure whether or not God exists, and belief simply boils down to a matter of choice.

Which begs the question: Which is more appealing, to believe in God, or not to believe in God? I think it is certainly more appealing to believe that there is Someone watching over us and taking care of us, and that after we die we will live in paradise for an eternity, than to believe that we are simply complex physical anomalies and any perceptions of purpose we may have are purely arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. That it is psychologically preferable to believe in God, I think, accounts for why 4/5 of the world's population does. But that does not make the belief in God's existence any more accurate.

This is one of the reasons why I no longer believe in God. I think many of the people who do believe in God choose to do so simply because it feels good to. While this may serve as an adequate reason for them to believe, one can see why it would trigger doubts in my mind as to the truth of their beliefs.

knivetsil