Well, thanks for assuming, but I went to 12 years of Catholic school.  I probably know more about the Bible than the vast majority of people who claim to believe in it.  And what does "explains things that we thought could only be explained by technology" even mean?  Could you give an example?

Yes, from my knowledge of the Bible it does not explain the world as it is now as it does narrate a really quite intetresting history of how the world came to be, and teach people how to act without being a thrwat to society.

Darn I am a biologist.  Right in center.

Maybe God already gave me something to prove otherwise?

See, now we need a distinction between what people think religion says and what religion actually says.  Or perhaps, people using religion to further their own agendas (last part).

The idea of a God is an omnipotent, omniscient being.  He is all powerful, he is all knowing.  I mentioned in passing that the Catholic church already ran across an apparent contradiction of God (can't remember what it was or I'd have linked it, but I think it was a couple hundred years ago even) and decided that since He's God he can do whatever he damn well pleases, because he's all powerful, and this includes proof or disproof of him existing or not existing.

I think we're pretty much in exact agreement on that.

Yeah, I agree that omniscient/omnipotent is usually part of all the major religions, I meant the part about "It's not so much that the sandwich has no qualities of existence-it's just that we aren't permitted to observe any of them."  Most people don't profess a belief that God is literally unprovable like that.  They think they see "evidence" of him all over the place.  At best, they would say he works mysteriously, not that he works in ways that are by definition unable to influence anything in the real world.  This latter interpretation is the one that's only popular in philosophy and not regular believers.

Did you ever see a painting of a painter who paints a painting of a painter who paints a painting of a painter, who paints a painting of a painter who paints a painting of a painter, who paints a painting of a painter who ...

Same thing isn't it?

Still, while from that perspective it sounds plausible that reality is something similar to an onion, metaphorically speaking, it's highly unlikely.

The fact that biochemical and electrochemical reactions are all there is to our intelligence and being what we are along with some physics which make the universe what it is may seem impossible to grasp for some people, but for me personally it's much more plausible than some great maker.

But of course it's much more easier to say that one doesn't need to prove such a being exists because one simply believes in it's existence, and that it must have some greater plan when something terrible happens, rather than accepting that one is nothing special and there is no greater purpose to hisser own extistence.

Truse but who maid the painter? Either he was born as a result of complex biochemical processes or somebody made him. Nothing can ever truly occur in a vacuum, which is why there would need to be infinite layers.

Yeah. Either that or there is no painter at all, and the painting was created due to some complex process.

First, just because you went to x number of years to catholic school or the individual that stated that they read the bible (which usually means that that person has only read either a few passages or a couple of chapters) DOES NOT mean that you are the end all knowledge in that area.

Just as if I STATED that I've worked in Quantum Mechanics for the University of Cambridge for 10 years DOES NOT mean that I am the end all knowledge in Quantum Mechanics!

Both of those agruments are committing a fallacy of appeal to flattery. 

By you insinuating that you know basically everything about the bible and that no one can tell you anything new under the sun MAYBE I should start claiming the science part and say since I doubt anyone individual here has worked at a prestigous university for that time period CAN NOT show me anything new under the sun as well.

Or MAYBE since you have an exhaustive knowledge of the bible I should come to your house and work for you since you claim to be a scientist with an open mind and all.....

Now all that is asinine and me just being sardonical.  Yet it still holds true as a Scientist and a Mathematican that I still have an open mind to look into areas in order to find answers or to find more questions.  Both are acceptable.

Einstein once said "The man who claims to know everything and can not be taught anything new IS an idiot."

The bible also says something to that extent in Ecclessiasties.

This is what he said: 

And you said:

 wonder how you went from his statement to yours. Never did he say he knew everything. C'mon and be polite and lets try and understand what people are saying.

I apologize for that syntex mistake. I can no longer edit it though.  I still present a valid point though.

There is an insinuation there BUT I will concede and apologize.

well im gonna add my 2 cents before this thread starts a war .

im a man of science AND faith. i believe in a god, maybe not anyone elses god but a god none the less. there will never be a time when every last thing is quantified so we cant prove if there is a god or not. the point of religion is to inspire and remind us to be the best ppl we can be, not to condem those who disagrre with it (though thats become the common practice). you shouldnt be nice cause your scared to burn in hell, you should be nice b/c you like making ppl smile or making others feel good.

last point. god doesnt have to be a man or a women or either for that matter, god could be simply a conciousness. but since we'll never know and man kind as a whole is bent on quantifying every last thing it doesnt matter. religion is what you make of it, how you interpret it, and how you act b/c of or inspite of it.

besides whats the fun in knowing everything anyway?