Pericles,
You are correct in saying my family had a significant influence on what I believe. However, why would I wish to run counter to my family heritage? Rather, I have come to treasure it as a blessing of God. Yet I would challenge your suggestion that I have not seriously weighed the alternatives, or never investigated the issues deeply.

You ask about the thought processes. This is simple. For belief in God, this is either a yes or no question. Weigh the alternatives. Do you believe? Although I shouldn't be flippant. The reason why some believe when others don't can also be a profound question. Yet I think atheists are sometimes more disinclined to the possibility of believing than they care to admit, perhaps more disinclined than someone coming from a Christian environment is inclined.

You ask, am I missing something? Have you ever considered the reality of God? Many people are converted to the faith after having significant encounters that they could not explain otherwise. I remember Mike Willisee converting to Catholicism only a short time after being awarded a prize from the skeptic's association for the thoroughness of his disbelieving film documentaries. I recall the famous author, CS Lewis, who was raised an atheist, describing his coming to faith as if God was pursuing him as a cat might pursue a mouse. It's more than 'imagination'. In a sense these people 'met' God in the form of a Spirit.

And I'm not sure what you mean when you said 'impregnable-to-logic' with regard to faith. Perhaps you could explain further. I believe the Christian faith is eminently reasonable and logical, and have tried to give it a logical defence many times on this Forum. My investigations on the matter have not been superficial. After my Christian baptism as a teenager, I completed a BA with a philosophy major, as well as completing other theological studies, as well as reading many books on the creation/evolution controversy, for which I'm sure you're well aware.

Examination of religious belief requires constant acts of interpretation, which is why people constantly debate the meaning Biblical verses.

>>Jesus never said his 'father's house has many doors'. That makes it sound like all beliefs are equally valid.<<

According to the King James version, the exact phrase was:

"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." John 14:2

I can take a guess at half a dozen different intentions generating this single sentence. But then, there is the fact that the quote itself was written (probably) in Aramaic, by someone (or possibly some people) upon whose identity we can only speculate. To base any argument at all on such a flimsy foundation is predestined to founder simply on the number of individual opinions that are totally justifiable on the evidence provided.

None of which gets us any closer to reality, but at most provide a level of insight into to the workings of individual minds.

And this, Dan S de Merengue, is where your thinking processes and mine diverge:

>>For belief in God, this is either a yes or no question. Weigh the alternatives. Do you believe?<<

My answer is simply "no". But more to the point, it is not even possible for either of us to be specific as to the identity of what I am supposed to believe in.

Nor am I alone in this.

If you ask a Christian and a Muslim whether they worshipped the same God, you could get totally different answers from each. Catholics might say "yes"...

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-it-the-popes-private-opinion-that-muslims-worship-the-same-god

...but others say "no". Vehemently.

http://www.menorah.org/allahtrc.html

Which is the reason why the thought processes undertaken by people who categorically "believe" are so fascinating to me.

>>And I'm not sure what you mean when you said 'impregnable-to-logic' with regard to faith.<<

Quite simply, I cannot see how logic, or rationality, can be applied to a situation where there are so many potential interpretations of the question "God, yes or no".

To me, the question is in itself illogical.

Dear Pericles,

I am not anti-deist!

I believe that Deism is wonderful and at times even practice it myself. When I am in church I make use of it and worship the Christian trinity and if I'm in a mosque then I would similarly worship Allah, and so on in any other place of worship.

As a Hindu, I worship several aspects of God AS IF He was a deity, AS IF He had a human or animal form, male or female: though God has no form, this is a good technique for coming closer to Him.

If someone, despite the modern/scientific brainwash is fortunate enough to still be able to sincerely believe that God exists and has a specific form, including the human Son of God, then I would be the last to "correct" them. Worshipping Jesus Christ the Son of God is a wonderful thing - it purifies the heart and transforms one's soul, then ultimately a devout Christian can become a saint and live with God, in God and only for the sake of God.

For those who can no longer believe that God exists, I can still suggest that they should continue to worship Him regardless, including, if they have Christian inclinations, as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I suggest that they put aside the question of existence and perhaps substitute it with the question of goodness. It is (by definition even) better to base one's life and life-style on goodness than on existence.

You asked for my definition of God:

Vedanta philosophy, as taught by the Upanishads and to which I subscribe, tells us that God cannot be defined in any positive manner. All one can say is "not this, not that" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti), yet there is nothing but God. It is an implicit definition, yet I find it complete and satisfying.

I'll accept that, Yuyutsu.

>>I am not anti-deist!<<

But only in the sense that you do not dislike deists, that you would welcome them in your home and allow your daughter to marry one.

You yourself however are not one. The definition of deism includes the existence of a God, which you do not accept...

>>As for the existence of God, I already wrote that it would be a logical contradiction, hence God does not exist.<<

Neither you, nor the Upanishads, can define something by its lack of existence.

>>All one can say is [that God is] "not this, not that"<<

This can equally define our legal system, or the weather patterns over the Coral Sea, or the mating habits of the preying mantis. By saying "not this, not that" and eliminating all the things they are not, you are bound to arrive at arrive at the thing itself. Logically, the same must apply to the definition of God.

In its simplest form, apophatic theology is just an intellectual exercise that boils down to the statement "actually, I don't know". Dissatisfied with this simplicity, it proceeds to blame the lack of a conclusion on God itself. Very convenient.

I should also point out the fly in this particularly sweet-smelling ointment, which is that since you have already decided you can't tell what God is, there can be no basis upon which to determine what God is not.

As Douglas Adams so neatly encapsulated the problem:

"“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”

“But,” said Man, “the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don’t. QED.”

“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that!” and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore he proves that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing."

[Douglas Adams: Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Fit the First]

Dear Pericles,

<<But only in the sense that you do not dislike deists, that you would welcome them in your home and allow your daughter to marry one.>>

I would also encourage a deist to remain a deist; gladly join and participate in deist worship; and at times direct and pour my feelings of love and gratitude to God through a deity.

<<The definition of deism includes the existence of a God, which you do not accept...>>

Indeed, if that's the definition then I cannot be formally considered a deist, yet for me the question of existence is insignificant. I understand that this question is popular in this day and age, for theists and atheists alike, yet I can't see why.

<<Neither you, nor the Upanishads, can define something by its lack of existence.>>

The non-existence of God is not a definition, but a conclusion, my own. The [implicit] definition is:

1. No description or quality can be positively attributed to God.
2. There is nothing but God.

The non-existence of God can be derived by applying simple logic: If God exists, then the quality of existence can be attributed to Him, hence He is not God... Contradiction, hence God does not exist.

<<there can be no basis upon which to determine what God is not.>>

Why, 'God is not ________', just fill in that blank-space whatever you want, feel free...

But then don't forget the second part of the definition:

Since by your own experience you undeniably are and since there is nothing but God, then what possibly could you be? What are you?

<<apophatic theology is just an intellectual exercise>>

Indeed, reaching God through rationality alone is next to impossible: in this pursuit one should also utilise their emotionality, ingenuity and will-power. The rational part, however, helps us to de-identify from any distracting worldly desires - we focus on them one by one and conclude rationally: "not this, this is NOT God, this will not lead me to eternal joy and peace, so I better concentrate elsewhere".

Tell me, Yuyutsu, do you have an App that churns out this rubbish for you?

>>...for me the question of existence is insignificant<<

Yet you still eat. To what end, if not a continued existence?

So, not all that insignificant, eh?

>>The non-existence of God is not a definition, but a conclusion, my own.<<

Yet you still talk about God, as if one did exist. Incessantly. Why? Talking about things that don't exist is usually a warning sign that all is not well, healthwise.

>>If God exists, then the quality of existence can be attributed to Him, hence He is not God... Contradiction, hence God does not exist.<<

Actually, if you look closely, that is not a contradiction.

If God exists, the quality of existence can be attributed to him, therefore he exists by definition. Only if he doesn't exist, can the quality of non-existence be applied.

>>Why, 'God is not ________', just fill in that blank-space whatever you want, feel free<<

The problem is, how do you know that you haven't accidentally filled the blank space with the exact description of God? You have no way of knowing whether you have, or you haven't. If you have by chance picked the precise definition, then your statement is false. Even though you won't know that it is false, of course.

>>Since by your own experience you undeniably are and since there is nothing but God<<

There you go again. On the one hand you say there is no God, but at the same time you say there is nothing but God.

Sometimes I am extremely grateful that I am atheist. With thought processes like that, I'd find it impossible to live a normal life.