The only thing Science can't explain is the creation of the universe, and that's where Religion comes in. However, while Religion can explain that, it can't explain the creation of the creator of the universe. As for me, I'm an Atheist, and I believe the universe was/can neither be created nor destroyed, but just continuously exists in a paradoxial way.
And as far as I'm concerned, there are no gods. I base that on that it apparently can't be proven or even identified, and there's no point in believing in gods just on the off chance you might be right and get to say "I told you so".
Of course, Agnostic is a widely recognised state of belief, there's no reason to stick yourself in a larger category. And there's always other religions too, Christianity is only one among thousands that just happens to be particularly popular.

--
Lets Play Pokemon Platinum (33 episodes, updated daily!)
Warning: contains swearing, concentrated rage, and high amounts of Bidoof

I see the point your making, but this is something that confuses me the most. Not picking on you, but all the other people who say that they can never see any proof of God, yet blindly put faith in the science "fact" of evolution. Have you personally proven to yourself, with experiments and the whole nine yards, that evolution is a fact? Probably not. Have you searched for God and tried to live your life in the principles laid out in the Bible? Probably not.
The so called Christians who say that we need to blindly believe there is a God, are ignorant people. Scientist who say that we shouldn't believe in God because they can't prove a physical existence of a God, are ignorant people.
Thinking that God is one controlling everything, purposing everything in our day to day lives, sends us to heaven or hell when we die, and major disasters are his 'will' (like Hurricane Katrina)... is due to a lack of education in the Bible. Yeah I realize people who claim to be Christians actually say that stuff. But someone who doesn't believe in God or know anything the Bible teaches, can claim to be a Christian too. Claiming to be one, doesn't make it so.
Saying the we know everything there is to know about everything, is silly. I'm sure you would agree with that. Science is always changing. They used to say that the Universe would grow and then implode on itself. Now they say that it will expand forever without stopping. Also, there is so much out there that we don't know. And thats just looking to the stars. People when they say there is no proof of God usually don't consider what we see in Nature. Funny to say that some of the greatest and best inventions, AND the best and most advanced technology is all based off what we see in nature. Having an incredibly advanced circulatory system, complex organs (like the brain that we've only been able to skim the surface potential wise, which doesn't make sense if we evolved into humans, why would we have more than a brain than we needed too?) and the thousands upon thousands of different animals, insects, plants, micorganisms, etc. With yet many to still be discovered....all came by accident? So a universe came into existence somehow by accident, that led somehow to the balance and what we call 'laws' (like gravity) perfect for what we know as the universe to take shape, that let to our planet being just the exact distance from the sun, that some how life got started on this planet by accident... that led to complex organisms like you and me as well thousands of different species. Some of which that are in such extreme places to live, its curious how something could learn to live at the lowest point in the ocean, or even move from that point.
Well I think I just started to think out loud and forgot the point that I was trying to make. Sorry about the small rant.

POINT BEING: Just because scientist say it is so, does not make it true. Just because religions say it is a certain way, does not make it true.
From my experiences, reading into many other religions, as well as looking into science theory... I've came up with what I have found to be the truth. I have reasons for believing in it. I have many reasons for living by it.
So what I'm saying is that if one is to make a choice such as this, do it out of PERSONAL research and a sincere desire. If you don't really care, then you don't really care...and chances are you'll stick to whatever decision you made before looking into such things. If you want to say you are a certain way, at least have reasons for it because you deeply looked into it. If one is to have a better understanding of the Force...they need to look at all its aspects...Not just the narrow minded view of the Jedi. UNLIMITED....PWRRRRRR`!!!!

^ My two cents.

--
Life is a joke...

...and I'm the punchline.

We're very much on the same page. No, you're right, I can't prove evolution any more than I can prove creationism, and the sheer intricacies of all nature and life seem to unbelievable to be a sheer cosmic coincidence that sprang out of a primordial goo. Even so, my mind accepts that a lot more readily than it accepts the will of a supposed God. I regularly wish I could believe in God, but my mind rejects it.

Maybe I'll eventually be able to arrive on one answer like you have, but as we've established, you know, probabilism. I'm never sure about anything.

Comedy relief: The FireFox spelling dictionary recognizes "probabilistic," but not "probabilism," or "proven."

--
I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid!

''all the other people who say that they can never see any proof of God, yet blindly put faith in the science "fact" of evolution. Have you personally proven to yourself, with experiments and the whole nine yards, that evolution is a fact? Probably not. Have you searched for God and tried to live your life in the principles laid out in the Bible? Probably not. ''

Saying that just because one hasn’t tried it you can’t reject it is a fallacy. I have this idea that you haven’t tried to live as a Vodun, Raelian or devil worshipper – yet you can reject substantial bits of their teaching. I for one haven’t tried to be a serial killer either yet he might not seem like the perfect moral figure to me.
And people don't need to prove that something does not exist. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something provided that the thing has no properties that can be physically measured, if it supposedly has measurable properties, and then it can be disproved. God luckily enough is invisible, and cannot be physically touched. It's up to you to prove the existence.


''The so called Christians who say that we need to blindly believe there is a God, are ignorant people. Scientist who say that we shouldn't believe in God because they can't prove a physical existence of a God, are ignorant people. ''

What’s ignorant about not believing something that has not been proven? Even more, why believe something that there are no pieces of scientific evidence for? I’m sure you have heard this one, but if I say that there’s an undetectable kettle pot circling the sun beyond the orbit of Pluto that created life on Earth, one should ask me to prove it not go to the newest temple and buy a little kettle pot to hang around the neck. The point is that there’s no rational reason to believe in the kettle pot, nor in a God – though both have existences that are impossible to prove.


''Saying the we know everything there is to know about everything, is silly. I'm sure you would agree with that. ''

Which is why people actually understanding science never claim that. Personally though I feel that it is less ludicrous to believe that 6.6 billion people can achieve omniscience than that one single (for lack of a better word) organism has. I can assure you that most who don’t believe in God are not dogmatic to the current scientific establishment, acknowledges the flaws of the concept of empirical information, and when that knowledge becomes valid. Few atheists are dogmatic atheists, and not all dogmatic atheists are dogmatic atheists with regard to all gods. A weak atheist does not believe the claim "god exists" because it is not supported by evidence. He does not say that the claim is necessarily false, but merely that he does not believe it.


''Science is always changing. They used to say that the Universe would grow and then implode on itself. Now they say that it will expand forever without stopping. Also, there is so much out there that we don't know. And thats just looking to the stars.''

Why would you want science not to change? To believe that pi actually was a fraction, that the world is flat and so on? Religion has changed drastically too. The Christian god must have had severe hangovers during most of the Old Testament or he has changed as well. Opposing something just because it changes seems rather irrational to me. Yes, science is changing. Change is in the very nature of science. The more we study something the better can we understand it – and understanding really is the goal here, not a never-changing story, possibly contradicting what we see in reality.


'' People when they say there is no proof of God usually don't consider what we see in Nature. Funny to say that some of the greatest and best inventions, AND the best and most advanced technology is all based off what we see in nature. Having an incredibly advanced circulatory system, complex organs ] (like the brain that we've only been able to skim the surface potential wise, which doesn't make sense if we evolved into humans, why would we have more than a brain than we needed too?)''

The very essence of evolution (something we see in nature) is that it’s a program of optimisation, thus providing more and more brain capacity because it proved advantageous. And if we wanted to fly, what mechanism should we study if not something that actually flies?


''and the thousands upon thousands of different animals, insects, plants, micorganisms, etc. With yet many to still be discovered....all came by accident? So a universe came into existence somehow by accident, that led somehow to the balance and what we call 'laws' (like gravity) perfect for what we know as the universe to take shape, that let to our planet being just the exact distance from the sun, that some how life got started on this planet by accident... that led to complex organisms like you and me as well thousands of different species. Some of which that are in such extreme places to live, its curious how something could learn to live at the lowest point in the ocean, or even move from that point. ''

So everything is improbable? There are two non-exclusive main lines of answering this. Ponder the enormous amount of star systems we have found (and continue to find). Is it entirely unlikely that any of those system (say ours) would turn out to look just like ours? Let’s suppose not and for the sake of argument suppose that at least one such system with a ‘Earth’ exists. Is it entirely unlikely that during 14 billion years of time on this world the one important chemical reaction starts? Perhaps. Then suppose 100 such ‘Earths’ exist, make that 1400 billion years (14*100). Yes, this is speculation but we have no idea of how many earth like systems there are out there.
As for the natural laws, with certain reasoning one can conclude that with slightly different constants the universe would be instable. Instable universes would be recycled until a stable one appears which, by this reasoning, would have to have conditions that are nice enough to us. Anyway, the point is that just because we have perfect conditions here do not mean much. If someone rolls her dices she’ll eventually get five sixes – but she’ll also get small straights, full houses etc. – the uninhabitable worlds we see around us.
The other line basically agrees that it is improbable, then asks how improbable a deity that had the power to set all this up would be. While God can be used as a shortcut to explain various things around us, how do you explain God? Some say that they can’t accept that “everything has always been here”, yet they have no problems believing that He has and that He created it out of nowhere (or possibly out of a cow and a giant).


'' POINT BEING: Just because scientist say it is so, does not make it true. Just because religions say it is a certain way, does not make it true. From my experiences, reading into many other religions, as well as looking into science theory... I've came up with what I have found to be the truth. I have reasons for believing in it. I have many reasons for living by it. ''

If someone says something is so and then proves it, it’s a bigger chance it’s real than when someone says something and don’t prove it. Of course there's no DEFINITE proof of evolution (likewise, you could say there is no definite proof of anything since the world according to ones perception may all be an illusion, and so on). But with we can draw the most possible conclusion, and to the best of the empirical research we've gathered, evolution is the best conclusion. When asked ‘which do you believe?’ I choose the alternative that has most evidence and logic and least contradictions on its side.

--
The left's problem is the belief in innate goodness. It should exist and be based on the knowledge that it's a lacking quality

We're going to just have to agree to disagree my friend. What people perceive to be evidence and proof, will always differ from what the other considers evidence and proof. I guess it all comes back down to perspective and opinion.
I could keep this discussion up. But I've been in enough of them that I know there is never an end. But if you still would like to carry on conversation about this, feel free to PM me. Although there is nothing really to discuss, since we've both made up our minds.

--
Life is a joke...

...and I'm the punchline.

You're right. This topic have been discussed for thousands of years and is still without a final conclusion. Don't think either of us have that much spare time really..

--
The left's problem is the belief in innate goodness. It should exist and be based on the knowledge that it's a lacking quality