lst

I can only speak for myself, and this is the way I see it (but this is already Faith):

"God" is defined this way: the only one not caused by anything else.

So, if God is the only one not caused by anything, but simply cause of Himself, nobody can reach God, if He doesn't allow to be reached.

So, the only possibility for us to know something about God is that He deliberately decided to communicate Himself to us.

From this premises, it's clear that there can only be one real Religion, and that all the other ones are simply negations of some parts of the real one...

And you know what "logic" means?

You can't act against "logic" without hurting yourself. If you are a hacker (like me), you never ever can act against logic, otherwise your program won't work (and exactly the same happens with life itself).

Sorry to correct you, but you're actually kind of shy (that is, not really determined):

You simply confirm that if 3 persons of human species are exposed to the same reality (yes, reality, because the impressions may be different, but the reality is well defined and precisely one):

So, if 3 persons of the same species are all concluding more or less different things, then you have the definite answer that none of them is seeing absolutely everything, that is: the whole reality:

So: you can't be God, because:

If you were God, you would know it (together with the exact reality of all things...)

I only explained the basic principles of logic...

If you say: "I cannot know whether a god exists or not.", you already say that you are not cause of yourself (otherwise you would know), and, consequently, there must be another cause outside yourself:

And this is exactly the definition of "God".

Yes, you are always free to misunderstand.

The interesting thing is: some do, some do not.

(We have physics, chemistry, and others, exactly to distinguish different levels...)

Agnostics are shy atheists.

If the answer is either yes or no, and you say "maybe", you say "no", substantially.

Why? Because every "no" is simply a refuted "yes" (philosophically speaking).

I have a (simple) question to all atheists:

If you didn't create yourself (and you didn't, otherwise you would know/remember/etc.), and (consequently) some other one did, how do you call it?

Let me explicitly repeat your statement:

You say that the human brain would (in theory) be able to create something more intelligent than itself?

(Are you aware of the irony?)

BTW:

I really love the "0 karma" feature from sites like this one: It helps very, very much not to waste too much time here, given that I never learned anything substantial on places like this one. May I cite some better teachers:

    - books
    - real persons
    - live discussions
    - pubs
    - restaurants
    - (last not least) my family(!!)

or simply: anything that escapes virtuality...