But your statement is just a personal opinion, Min
The lack of tangible evidence for god is not a personal opinion.
There is no tangible evidence. There isn't a lot of intangible evidence other than the drivel spouted by believers.
Meanwhile, the fact that most human groups eventually create such a being is highly suggestive to me that is nothing but man-made stuff.
If triangles had a god, they would give him three sides.” —Montesquieu
Min, this is still just your opinion. Nobody knows the answer to this question, including science. So there is no evidence EITHER WAY.
"Goddidn'tdoit" DOES cut off a line of inquiry. It cuts off a line of inquiry into the possibility of an Intelligent Designer as we see from this news story came which out only the other day. It tells us that Richard Dawkins is refusing to debate with Stephen Meyer about how there is evidence of a designing code within DNA, as Meyer showed in his book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.
And as you know from the famous Ben Stein interview
with Dawkins, Dawkins does admit that this signature exists but, moving ever closer to Sitchin and Von Daniken, is now of the opinion that we have been created by a master race of advanced intelligence on another planet .. .if that isn't an Intelligent Designer, I don't know what is!
Seattle – Richard Dawkins, the world’s leading public spokesman for Darwinian evolution and an advocate of the “new atheism,” has refused to debate Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a prominent advocate of intelligent design and the author of the acclaimed Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.
“Richard Dawkins claims that the appearance of design in biology is an illusion and claims to have refuted the case for intelligent design,” says Dr. Meyer who received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge in England.
“But Dawkins assiduously avoids addressing the key evidence for intelligent design and won’t debate its leading proponents,” adds Dr. Meyer. “Dawkins says that there is no evidence for intelligent design in life, and yet he also acknowledges that neither he nor anyone else has an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the first living cell. We know now even the simplest forms of life are chock-full of digital code, complex information processing systems and other exquisite forms of nanotechnology.”
In Signature in the Cell, Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code embedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin?
Signature in the Cell has just entered its third printing according to publisher HarperOne, an imprint of Harper Collins, and has been endorsed by scientists around the world, including leading British geneticist Dr. Norman Nevin, Alastair Noble, Ph.D. chemistry, formerly Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science, Scotland, and Dr. Philip Skell, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Meyer challenged Dawkins to a debate when he saw that their speaking tours would cross paths this fall in Seattle and New York. Dawkins declined through his publicists, saying he does not debate “creationists.”
“Dawkins’ response is disingenuous,” said Meyer. “Creationists believe the earth is 10,000 years old and use the Bible as the basis for their views on the origins of life. I don’t think the earth is 10,000 years old and my case for intelligent design is based on scientific evidence.”
According to Discovery Institute, where Dr. Meyer directs the Center for Science & Culture, the debate challenge is a standing invitation for any time and place that is mutually agreeable to both participants.
So this shows that "Goddidn'tdoit" has already made up its mind as much as "Goddiddoit". And more than just refusing to debate people, Dawkins has used his influence to shut down his opponents. Michael Cremo (co-author of Forbidden Archaeology) was due to speak at the University of Kent just near to where I live. But Richard Dawkins and some of his cronies actually cancelled Michael's talk there. Now that, in any other walk of life, would be called censorship. And anyway, what's Dawkins so afraid of that he cannot let others explain their views? If their views are so off the wall, surely letting them speak would be the best way to expose this?
However, Dawkins must be continually awoken in the dead of night with a stabbing and gnawing doubt in his guts about the solidity of his position. He has foolishly declared that because science has shown that the Earth is much older than 10,000 years, that also proves that there is no God. It's hard to imagine any kind of ignorant assumption more crass and baseless than this one ~ and also one more insulting to spiritual beliefs that existed long the metaphorical language of the Old Testament was misunderstood by literalists.
It's disappointing to think that our civilisation will lose its way over something so simple as a lack of imagination.
I like your Montesqueiu quote, and also Uniface's one about the ant, as they are both examples of what happens when we try to fit God or gods into our own tiny mental parameters, which is what religions do, (It is also what science does, as Uniface points out, with "the inability of the tool set to account for (validate) it. And because the mentality of the toolkit cannot be questioned, there the matter ends.")
But religions are about a faith or belief in God or gods and NOT a direct experience of God or gods.
Before religions, there was shamanism, which doesn't demand a faith or belief in God or gods, but gives a direct experience of gods (the Greek word for spirits).
A direct experience in the spiritual energy that creates, sustains and eventually destroys this creation is not blind faith, and it bursts through the tiny mental parameters we try to put on it. You've heard the expression, "It blows your mind" I'm sure. The direct experience of the divine intelligence of Spirit literally blows your mind, because it is so huge. Far from cutting off a line of inquiry, it expands the mind to ever infinite possibilities.
There are plenty of people who have had a direct and tangible experience of this divinity, through shamanic-like practises, who would laugh at your insistence that yours is the most "rational" view. It's only the most "rational" view to you because it's the only one you have, due to lack of experience. And so long as you close down any other line of inquiry, it will always remain to you the most "rational" view.