劳拉说:“当我?我自己也不是一个信徒，老实说，不是吗?我不明白理性的人怎么会……"
I consider my own case. I was a believer and came to be an atheist through reflection on the evidence. At least, I like to think so. Was I irrational and gradually became more rational as doubts arose, finally becoming fully rational when I ceased to believe? Current philosophical literature on the epistemology of testimony and social epistemology leads me to think believers in any stock of propositions should be given more thought.

凯文，我完全支持现象学，但我认为这是哲学的一部分，而不是神学。我看不出把上帝加到解释的图画中，对我们的经验有什么启示。
Bill, you're right to point out that belief in God is epistemically in the same position as many of our other beliefs that we acquire from the testimony of others. But I also think there are other epistemic problems with belief in God that go beyond the problem of testimony.
Laura, what a concept! A PT tailgate party. Feel free to call in and join the conversation...

Let's not forget that philosophers too are often conceptually or philosophically confused or so say many philosophers of other philosophers and even of the their own past thinking.

我想强调我之前帖子里的一个问题:“我是不理性的，在怀疑出现时逐渐变得理性，在停止相信时最终变得完全理性吗?”"

Bill, it's true that philosophers can be conceptually confused, but usually in much more sophisticated ways! We'd expect even an undergraduate to be able to make such basic distinctions like that between an urge and a decision. A professional philosopher who tried to publish a paper that conflated those concepts would be laughed at, but in neuroscience Libet is frequently lauded as having proven we don't have free will. I find that somewhat outrageous.
至于你在成为无神论者之前是理性的还是现在完全理性的，我们都在某些方面是理性的，在另一些方面是非理性的。我不想一概而论，也不想说相信上帝的人是完全不理性的。但如果你经历了一个检验超自然存在的可能证据的“过程”，他创造了宇宙，知道一切，所有的力量等等，你也花一些时间思考这样的概念是否内在连贯，对这样的过程唯一合理的结论是，没有理由相信上帝。相信的人不会这样做，因为他们有任何证据。
凯文，我不知道你说的"现象学-神学"是什么意思。“现象学”有什么问题?

GOD AND SCIENCE
God is not ?something outside the universe,? God is a consciousness outside one?s own. Why do you all need an explanation for consciousness? Because science is a ?religion? to you: because it ?explains? things in the material realm, you ?believe? or you ?pray? that it explains everything in the consciousness realm ? and religion and theology are part of the consciousness realm: not reachable by scientific methods. So what?s the big problem with that? Skip the science, think rationally about why people invent a consciousness outside their own. Now you are a philosopher.

我记得是埃德温·伯特，《现代物理科学的形而上学基础》

Come Together
"I am he as you are he as you are me / And we are all together"
Truth cannot be attained in the man made uncertain measures of division, but rather in the indivisible, self-evident unity or Oneness of absolute infinite All.
Be true, Be One, just be,
=

嗨，凯文——上面我已经试着表明，科学和上帝之间没有冲突。你说到“我的神学”:我认为“我的神学”是指“我对上帝和精神事务的信仰”。凯文，你有你自己的理由去相信你所相信的;“信念”是在你的头脑中持有的事情，要么独立于科学证据，要么不需要科学证明。如果你的“神学”要求上帝在特定的一周创造了地球，那就相信它吧;你需要相信它，如果你其他的神学理论都源自或依赖于这个观点。为什么要担心那些与你持不同观点的科学家呢?正如我在上面指出的，这是他们的“信念”。一切都需要一个解释;科学是唯一的解释(两者不比你的“信念”多或少，也不比你的“错误”或“正确”多)。 Let's take your example of Original Sin. What do you think the idea means? What do you think should be the objective in giving the idea credence and power? If these ends require a physical Genesis (and maybe they don't), then how is it constituted? When you have constructed your mental picture of the required physical Genesis, that is Genesis enough for you and your (good) theology (since I am confident the object of your theology is "good"). This is belief; if someone convinces you otherwise, then your belief might be changed -- no problem -- but I don't think once you have thought through the process I outlined and understood your own motivations clearly, you will worry about criticisms that posit beliefs that won't get you to your thought-through theology. It is time for you to stop worrying about your theology, and to just live it; time to stop "becoming" and start "being." The best way to deal with hard decisions, is just to go ahead and decide one way, and see how it works and how it feels, and if it doesn't work well or feel good, decide another way to go.

I may be a day late and a dollar short, but I consider myself to be a Christian. I believe that God set everything in motion. While I am a Christian, I am also a student studying physics. There are three points that can be derived from physics to explain why I am still a Christian. 1- Newtons laws of motion. If an object in motion stays in motion, and an object will continue on its current path, and a for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction, how can the earth be where it is after what is known as a big bang? What I mean is is that if something massive collided with the earth, how can the earth still be in the orbit of the sun? The earth is in a delicate balance. If it rotated slightly too fast, it will spin into the sun, destroying all life as we know it. If it rotated slightly too slow, it will spin out into space and everything we see will be covered with ice, destroying the world as we know it. Another thing that Physics can illuminate, is the law of probabilities. If evolution really did happen, the law of probabilities says that the chances of evolution really happening is 1 out of 5.4 trillion. You would have better luck rolling eight die and getting all 6's. And in the unlikely event where that one out of 5.4 trillion, everything would have to be in place and following very specific rolls. But Physics provides another law that ruins this too. Murphy's law states that everything that can go wrong will go wrong if not previously corrected. As seeing that there was now way for anyone to correct or make sure that evolution would succeed, I do not see how evolution could have actually happened. Unless God stood in and corrected it.