There's "common sense", which we all have to some degree, but then there is a sense that's uncommon. This uncommon sense is the sense that there is much more to this life we all share than meets the biological eye. This uncommon sense is the sense that there is something beyond the physical, something spiritual that we humans have access to.
"feelings" aren't helpful tools either.
I believe there is a spiritual realm
What you "believe" is irrelevant to what is actually true.
and right now it's a battle zone between good and evil and if you decide to learn more the best place to start is the Holy Bible.
Why not the quran? Or the bagavad ghita?
Honestly search for truth and you will not be lead astray, but the moment you are dishonest with yourself, you will give evil another foothold on your spirit.
Why would this "truth" be found in a bronze age book?
[quote$
What do you mean you don't "deal" with absolutes?[/quote]
I mean that I don't engage in unquestionable dogma. That's what "absolutes" are.
I accept things tentatively, leaving open the option (however small it may be in some cases) that I'm wrong.
You're able to comprehend the implications of absolutes are you not? If so then you can in fact "deal" with absolutes, just not completely because you are a subjective being.
No idea what this means.
So if you "believe" an absolute truth exists, how could it be absolutely true that the universe was a singularity and then also be absolutely true that the universe is not a singularity?
Que?
I don't recall ever making any of these claims concerning the universe. So I have no idea why you ask that question.
As far as we can comprehend absolutes, they must not be able to contradict even over time. It's either absolutely true that the universe exists as it does now, or its absolutely true that the universe is a singularity, it can't be absolutely true that the universe is both as it is now and a singularity at the same time, this is clearly impossible.
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Science hasn't found the answer yet
So?
and I would even say science will never be able to define consciousness. in fact they haven't even tried because there is no evidence for consciousness. So if science can never give you an answer as to why you're here
I'ld just like to point out that you first stated an opinion (that science will never be able to explain consciousness - merely your opinion) and then in the next sentence your choice of words seems to imply that you pretend that what is merely an opinion can be used as a factual premise.
, maybe the next best place to look is inside yourself which is the only thing you actually have full access to
Or maybe not.
Science does not have access to your consciousness, but YOU do, seems like a powerful statement to me.
I can't objectively study my consiousness.
You seem to be setting things up for an argument of ignorance in disguise.
Have you fully investigated the phenomena of having to believe in God in order to have a relationship with Him?
I can confidently say that I put in more effort in investigating your religion then made efforts to investigate every other religion that you don't buy into.
Tell me, how much effort have you spent investigating:
- alien abduction
- scientology
- islam
- budhism
- hinduism
- viking gods
- wiccan stuff
- ...... (this list goes on for a while...)
What's the one thing these "religious failures" have in common?
The most common thing is superstition and arguments from ignorance.
... for superstitious reasons.
Now we can use the idea of how the God of the Bible describes himself as being not restricted to time and space and we can apply this idea to quantum physics and find an explanation for it.
/facepalm
The idea of God has been around since man was able to think
You don't have any evidence of this claim since written history is only a small fraction of the time that homo sapiens exists.
Having said that, that's a fallacious argument as well.
It doesn't matter how many people believe X for any amount of time. It doesn't make X correct or the beliefs justified.
In fact, the argument actually works against your own beliefs.
If "the amount of time" that something is believed is evidence for it being correct, then hinduism has more supportive evidence then christianity.
and this idea can still explain the latest findings that science is unable to explain. Very interesting!
God-claims can't explain anything at all. "god dun it" doesn't explain anything.
Not once in the entire history of human kind did a supernatural explanation turn out to be correct.