Haven't read the whole thread but ref Descartes, the interesting thing to me was the steps he went through to arrive at cognito ergo sum.

• I know that I doubt because if I doubt that I doubt, I am still doubting
  
• I doubt, therefore I think
  
• I think therefore I am
  

I'm an agnostic. I can't actually disagree with any of the above based on logic as I understand it. But then perhaps my understanding of logic is flawed. Descartes then rambled on for a bit about how the presence of a mind that can think proves the existence of God, at which point he lost me in rhetoric and religious nonsense based on socialised opinions in my view, but the three points above appear, to me, to stand up to scientific analysis.

Something must be true. If not, the statement "Nothing is true" would be true, therefore false, therefore true etc ad infinitum.

There is something more complex than we understand going on here than we realise. The above simply proves it. To claim that you know what it is is largely puerile and boring as far as I am concerned.

Lilith makes a few appearances in the jewish texts but I don't think her function as Adam's first wife actually appears there (but haven't actually verified this myself). Rather, she is part of the jewish mythology, that is, the legends, stories and myths surrounding the religion. Her story was indeed developed significantly in the middle ages but this doesn't mean she didn't exist before.

Such myths are actually very common. You should visit a few greek islands sometime. I doubt you'll find even a single one that hasn't been visited by the holy spirit and/or the virgin(*) Mary, personally.

(*) yes, that "virgin" Mary who wasn't necessarily a virgin. She was called an "almah", which means either "young woman" or "virgin", with the former use being more common. This was originally translated as "virgin" and the concept stuck with the christians. However, the official jewish translation is indeed "young woman".

This christian fascination with virginity never ceases to amaze me, especially since the original text may not even have been meant to read that way.

Something must be true. If not, the statement "Nothing is true" would be true, therefore false, therefore true etc ad infinitum.

There is something more complex than we understand going on here than we realise. The above simply proves it.

You mean, you can use boolean logic to prove the existence of god? That's quite an achievement.

So, something is true. Ok, so far so good. How does this prove the existence of god?

'Aardvajk' said:

Something must be true. If not, the statement "Nothing is true" would be true, therefore false, therefore true etc ad infinitum.

There is something more complex than we understand going on here than we realise. The above simply proves it.

You mean, you can use boolean logic to prove the existence of god? That's quite an achievement.

So, something is true. Ok, so far so good. How does this prove the existence of god?

I didn't say it does. I said it proves that something more complex than we understand is going on here. That is, I guess, subjective but I'm not arguing from a religious point of view.

There is no evidence that god exists, it is up to anyone who thinks otherwise to provide the evidence to the contrary.

If I say that I can't, ever, prove it, but I believe it anyway, am I allowed to go on believing, or will I be ridiculed for it? Because, you know, it is 'up to me to prove it'? Prove what? As far as I believe, the existence of a physical universe is proof of a Creator. My mind can't accept a universe made of nothing. For me. Me. For you, no. Can't we settle this at that?

Don't confuse religious people that go around busting people's balls about their faith with people of faith that keep it personal and just speak their mind. I respect your beliefs(or non-beliefs, or whatever), I don't see why you shouldn't respect mine. I don't believe you're going to 'burn in hell' or anything because you don't believe.

It's funny. Here we are, some of us proposing some more rational view of religion, and some of you guys say 'no no, it's the palaiolithic, scary view that is the canon'. And go on talking about who was the first girlfriend of Adam.Because apparently the tangent on how Knowledge should be used and not abused with arrogance, wasn't interesting enough. Yeah, why talk if pharmaceuticals companies have the right to patent life-saving drugs and prohibit those that need them the most to use them, if we can talk about Lillith and if she mated with an archangel or not? Seriously people, what the hell. If I was an atheist, and when I was an atheist, I would prefer a rational and down to earth Christianism than a hardcore, fundamentalist one that wastes time trying to figure out how many angels can dance in the head of a pin or treats women as inferiors or other such nonsense. What's the deal here? I don't get it.