Free Will

WARNING: This is an overtly religious post.

Atheist: What about X, Y, and Z regarding your religion? You sure are gullible.

Me: Well, A (answer to X,) B (answer to Y) and C (answer to Z).

Atheist: Apologists want to believe because they are invested in their belief. You are an apologist because you replied to my questions and accusations of your gullibility. Also, here's another 100 issues I have with your religion.

Me: Yeah, but can we get back why you brought up A, B, and C before we get into your new goal posts with those 100 other issues?

Atheist: Wow, you will make any justification you have to in order to believe, won't you? I don't waste my time with apologists!

Using science to disprove ideology or ideology to disprove science is not an appropriate use of science or ideology:

1. Science is observations and conclusions of observations about the natural world. It is by very definition what we can know about reality through observation. We use it as a means to get information. Science is never absolute, it can always be disprove in the future, it is never "infallible." This means that science itself declares that there will always be more to learn, and that it will never discover everything there is to know. Any science person saying that science has disproved that there is any "God" is making an unscientific claim, because science does not ultimately prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, if it is really science.
2. Ideology is a tool we use for making decisions. It is a culmination of values, processes and mythology that make it easier for people to make decisions. (In the case of Secular Humanism for example, because it is not possible to know that there is not a God, their assertion that there is no God is their own mythology.) If we discover environmental damage is happening by way of Science, weather or not we should do anything with that information is a question of ideology. Any "science" claiming to be a decision making process is actually an ideology, because the scientific method is by definition NOT ideology.

Not all ideologies are equal when it comes to the survival of the people who subscribe to them. Ideologies that take science seriously have a serious advantage over the ones that don't. This is a scientifically observable fact, as we see with lesser ideologies that for example reject vaccinations. (Secular Humanism's strength its solid foundation of values and heavy reliance on science.)

As the New Age fringe loves to tout, there are aspects of reality far beyond our current scientific understanding. As science states itself, we will never know everything through science alone. This means that there MUST be forces we don't scientifically understand influencing our lives today. This does mean that it is possible that one of those forces is intelligent (God,) and that we may never discover this God through science.

If there is a God we will never discover through science, how can this God reach out to us? Every miracle can be explained away by "coincidence" or "illusion": 

• If this God came flying down out of the sky tomorrow morning and shook your hand, by that afternoon you could be asking yourself questions like "am I losing my mind" or "did someone use secret technology to make me think I saw this God?" Answering those questions "yes" would be using "illusion" to explain a miracle. 
• If you had a growth in your arm, and it was growing quickly, and you received a faith healing, and the growth had completely disappeared by the time you got to the doctor a few days later, you could soon explain it away saying "oh it must have been something other than a growth that went away on it's own." That would be using "coincidence" to explain away a miracle.

Practiced doubters would be able to explain away any possible way this God could try to contact them. The more vested people are in their atheist ideology (like Secular Humanism for example,) the less likely it will be for them to discover this God.

Because of our free will, if there is a God, this God will not force us to believe. What we do is based on what we believe. (For example, I look both ways before crossing the street because I believe a car could possibly injure me if I run out in front of it.) If this God forced us to believe, that would also force our actions. A theoretical God that would want us to have free will would not dictate our beliefs because that would destroy our free will.

I empathize with atheists who have not had supernatural experiences. I can't expect them to believe in an invisible God without any evidence. I admire Secular Humanists who choose beliefs without this God that cause them to be virtuous people. 

However, for the rest of us who have had supernatural experiences, faith in this God is a choice. But a warning to those who choose to believe in this God: this God would know that you do not know for 100% absolute certainty that this God exists (or that anyone who claims to speak on this God's behalf accurately presents this God's will.) This God will not allow you to use "but I thought you were real" as a justification to excuse some evil you decide to justify through your God-laced ideology. Even if you have powerful faith and relatively large amounts of personal evidence that this God exists, this God will expect you to have secular justifications for your actions! (See also "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love thy neighbor as thyself.")