How Do You Smile Without A Brain?
One of the first catechetical lessons children are taught is that God knows and loves all things perfectly and that He made them in His image. They learn that all people have a material body with the senses to see, hear, smell, taste and touch, and an immaterial soul with the powers to know and love. This explains to a child, to anyone, why we all have that the innate desires to know and be known, to love and be loved, to learn, to belong.
Atheist grown-ups, on the other hand, argue that there is no soul, there is only the brain. As far as any evidence has ever been able to determine, they say, the human mind is nothing more than a piece of software running on the computers we call brains. Our thoughts are Newtonian machines calculating data according to decision-making algorithms. They conclude that things like love and suffering are just the result of chemical reactions. They conclude we have no free-will. They claim that at death the brain ceases to function, and the person ceases to exist.
I wonder if they’ve met a little boy named Nicholas Coke? His heartwarming story is undoubtedly perplexing to an atheist. You see, he has no brain. He was born with a condition called anencephaly and only has a brain stem. He was expected to die at birth, but he lived and kept on living for almost four years now. It is said that he survives “only on will and love.” His mother says that the love from his family makes him stronger, and that he’s grown physically and emotionally. He smiles at them; he knows they are there. Even the most pertinacious atheist could not claim he’s dead or non-existent.
Oh science! Even if science explained every physical relationship in the whole world, it wouldn’t be able to predict the next behavior of a single person. Don’t we all know that? We know we thrive on love, we know we are more than matter. October is Respect Life Month and it’s the Month of the Holy Rosary. Pope Benedict XVI has declared that October 11 begins the Year of Faith. Please join me in this special month in prayer that all souls – even those without brains, and even those who think brains are all they have – are led to Heaven. God bless this little boy and his family’s love for showing us what we all know, but sometimes forget.
(Sorry for the ad, so watch and patronize the entrepreneurial spirit, please.)
Category: Catholic Free Press, Random
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Just a minor first note…
> They conclude we have no free-will.
Determinism is not universally accepted by atheists. I know plenty who believe in free will. Quantum uncertainty, et cetera, et cetera.
> His mother says that the love from his family makes him stronger, and that he’s grown physically and emotionally. He smiles at them; he knows they are there.
How does she know that he knows they are there? Is his smiling connected to knowing that she’s there? Is it connected to the sensation of being physically touched? Is it a random action caused by an incomplete brain? Even if the child is actually aware of their presence, how does this indicate the existence of a soul and not merely a sufficient amount of brain matter to actually give the child awareness of others?
> Even the most pertinacious atheist could not claim he’s dead or non-existent.
Nor could any Christian, Hindu, Jew, hockey fan, Democrat, Russian, or astronaut. This idea has as much relevance to atheists as it does the rest of those qualifications of people I’ve listed.
Stacy is well aware that free will is a debatable subject on both sides of the river, both atheist and theist alike.
I think it comes down to the fact that, for Stacy, truth is not something she’s in search of, but rather a huge axe to smash any opposition against her ideology. A commodity she trades between the like-minded.
I suspect these conversations will become increasingly circular and rehashed, with little to no applied knowledge on her part.
To Mjeck,
I was wondering if you ever began reading Contra Gentiles by Thomas Aquinas? Could you recommend a comprable work of apologetics for aithiesm?
Peace,
Alan R
Alan,
I have not read Contra Gentiles, but open to learning and understanding. I am mostly a reader and collector of the minor writers in Catholicism.
I could only recommend the books I’ve read, from Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Carl Sagan, for example. I’m not an Atheist, so I don’t know what is considered “canon” to the Atheist.
I am very confused by Stacy’s continuous misrepresentation of Atheists, when attempting to make a proof for her own faith.
I am confused by her definition of acceptance and approval in her previous blog article. Even after reading her original latin meaning of the word, I’m still confused. Somehow this is wiggle room to be disrespectful towards those she disagrees.
And I’m especially confused by this article about Nicholas Coke. I see a child who is suffering. Stacy sees an argument against a fictitious atheist entity. In psychological terms, this is called, splitting.
Mjeck,
It is a fact that atheists argue that “there is no soul, there is only the brain. As far as any evidence has ever been able to determine, they say, the human mind is nothing more than a piece of software running on the computers we call brains. Our thoughts are Newtonian machines calculating data according to decision-making algorithms. They conclude that things like love and suffering are just the result of chemical reactions. They conclude we have no free-will. They claim that at death the brain ceases to function, and the person ceases to exist.”
I linked the sources, and closely paraphrased, nearly quoted, from the FAQ’s listed on the “web’s largest atheist forum.” I also referenced an article written by Dr. Victor J. Stenger, (quoting) a retired elementary particle physicist and author of eleven books including the 2007 New York Times bestseller God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, and God and the Folly of Faith: The Fundamental Incompatibility of Science and Religion. In the article he quoted physicist Leonard Mlodinow and neuroscientist Sam Harris.
I am, in fact Mjeck, correct. That is what atheists argue.
If you disagree with those arguments, well, then you and I agree. But please, spare me the nonsense that just because some atheists don’t agree with other atheists, one is therefore prohibited from commenting on any atheist’s beliefs. That would take just about everything off the discussion table. Why?
That doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s not my fault if atheist’s beliefs are fragmented all over the place. You’ll have to take that complaint up with someone besides me.
Mjeck,
“I am very confused by Stacy’s continuous misrepresentation of Atheists, when attempting to make a proof for her own faith.”
Please quote where I misrepresented anything.
“I am confused by her definition of acceptance and approval in her previous blog article. Even after reading her original latin meaning of the word, I’m still confused. Somehow this is wiggle room to be disrespectful towards those she disagrees.”
What is disrespectful about addressing exactly what other people have claimed? I’m addressing claims, not attacking people. It’s not intolerant to reject false claims.
“And I’m especially confused by this article about Nicholas Coke. I see a child who is suffering. Stacy sees an argument against a fictitious atheist entity. In psychological terms, this is called, splitting.”
I see a precious child who is loved and alive.
There is really no handshake across the table for you, is there? I am still confused by your definition of acceptance; except that it implies that you “accept” that the person across the table from you is, in fact, evil.
Maybe mis-characterization is a better word term for me to use, for when you discuss homosexuals and atheists. You mis-characterize them as, perhaps sub-human? Incapable of love? Incapable of compassion? Little horns on their head? Deserve the evil-eye when you walk in the park?
Aren’t you the one that says, when you point the finger, there are three pointing back? Does this not include the one across the table, because they aren’t considered human to you? Not worth compassion or love?
I’ve never heard you, ever say something nice about an Atheist or Homosexual. Do you believe that you are 100% right, and they are 100% wrong? And btw, Catholics are the definition of fragmentation.
Mjeck,
I think you have a distorted view of acceptance.
The harsh language you used is your own overlay of words onto mine. I have never used those words. Never. They belong to you.
There’s a difference between disagreeing with ideas and hating people. Since when did “I disagree with you” become “I hate you, you sub-human, in-compassionate, horned being who deserves no love?” Good grief. Don’t you think you’re being a little dramatic?
Some of my writing about atheism has been used for teaching purposes by other people because I do try to see the good in them. Not everyone reads it through your lenses.
Please read this again carefully: http://www.acceptingabundance.com/why-believe-answers-from-cardinal-ratzinger-about-truth-and-tolerance/
Truth isn’t objective truth if it can be changed to fit an individual interpretation. And man needs the truth of Jesus Christ. It is a truth that can be understood by all, that is accessible to all, that is needed by all.
I could have a distorted view of acceptance. But your view of acceptance is not clear to me. It’s ambivalent.
If you do love and respect and find the good in the person sitting across the table from you; it’s not apparent to me. And I’ve been reading your blog for almost a year. You are teaching me what a Catholic is.
Josh,
Just a minor first note…
“Determinism is not universally accepted by atheists. I know plenty who believe in free will. Quantum uncertainty, et cetera, et cetera.”
OK, but many do hold these views, see my comment to Mjeck.
“How does she know that he knows they are there? Is his smiling connected to knowing that she’s there? Is it connected to the sensation of being physically touched? Is it a random action caused by an incomplete brain? Even if the child is actually aware of their presence, how does this indicate the existence of a soul and not merely a sufficient amount of brain matter to actually give the child awareness of others?”
She said so in the video. I tend to believe mothers.
“Nor could any Christian, Hindu, Jew, hockey fan, Democrat, Russian, or astronaut. This idea has as much relevance to atheists as it does the rest of those qualifications of people I’ve listed.”
But how do you reconcile the statement that “the human mind is nothing more than a piece of software running on the computers we call brains” with the life of this little boy?
Here Mjeck, then read someone else’s blog: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/pro-choice-catholics-worship-an-idiot-god/
Huh?
What am I supposed to understand by this?
Do you want me to go away so you can continue unchallenged debates with fictitious atheists perplexed by Nicholas Coke? Does this person exist?
If Catholics are incapable of kindness, as your link seems to suggest, then I have my answer about Catholics, and I will bother you no more.
Mjeck
You are free to go or stay, you are welcome to stay, but I will respond to your accusations. If you don’t like what I have to say, I thought maybe you’d like someone else.
Ultimately, you should never judge Catholicism by individual Catholics. You should judge it by itself, and what it teaches (which was part of Simcha’s point.)
You seem to be saying that it’s OK for you to challenge the beliefs of others, but it’s hateful if they do the same. I hope you understand that if that’s how you feel, then it’s futile for me to keep trying.
Ultimately, I judge Catholicism by the words of Jesus.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing vehemently. But listening is important; so is remembering that there is a real flesh and blood person on the other side of the table.
Mjeck, maybe this comment is way off base, and if so forgive me. It seems as if you can’t make a distinction between a judging a person and judging actions. I addressed that with an atheist (academic) on my own blog, who really did not see the distinction, either. I hope this helps:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/01/answering-miss-gwen-distinction-between.html
It’s possible that I cannot make the distinction. Which means you may need to explain it to me like I’m an 8 year old. I don’t understand Stacy’s practice of acceptance and compassion for others unlike herself – and how it reflects in her articles. It’s ambivalence to me. And not how i understand Christ’s teachings.
Hi Leila. When Stacy says, “His heartwarming story is undoubtedly perplexing to an atheist,” that sounds more like judging a person than judging their actions.
Mjeck,
I have a 7 and a 9 year old. They often do things that are wrong, things sometimes they insist are right. They wanted to build a fire today, and went about trying to tell me what to do, even were about to try to start it with toilet paper. Having no experience with building fires, but some life experience enough to know about danger and how to go about learning to do something new, I intervened. This was my first fire to ever build.
At times I had to speak to them harshly, lest they burn the house down. They get obstinate. They think they know more than I do, they want to take over. My main concern is their safety, my secondary concern is building a fire.
Eventually we got it built. They never once, not once in all my admonishing and demanding that they mind me and stay safe, thought I didn’t love them. In fact, they trust me because they know I do love them, and they are learning that even if what I say doesn’t make sense to them at first, they should trust me anyway and try to understand what I’m teaching them. Eventually it’ll make sense in a bigger picture.
They’re all out there now sitting in front of the fire talking about how beautiful it is, and freaking out because it’s going to burn out. You’d never know they were properly scolded today, but properly scolded they were. They are also alive and the house is still standing. And they know I love them because they understand the distinction between judging a person and judging actions.
I honestly don’t know where so many people get this idea that love = accepting everything you say or do and giving you a trophy for it. I wasn’t raised that way, I don’t raise my children that way. It seems obvious to me. That’s one thing I loved at first so much about Catholic friends. They debate with passion, and even when you disagree and have heated discussions, there’s camaraderie and friendship still at the end of it all. I love that.
I remember when my son was 8, and would also do dangerous things like play with fire. As a parent, my hat is off to you.
I can only infer by your post that you’re saying people on the other side of the debate (i.e. the atheists and homosexuals), are playing with fire; and you are loving them by pointing this out.
The Atheist and Homosexual would argue that, no, in fact, they aren’t playing with fire, and it’s you that is playing with an imaginary friend; avoiding reality; which is far more dangerous.
This is neither here nor there, for me. This is the never-ending debate; neither side will concede to the other, it would seem.
However, that does not mean that there cannot be an understanding that the person on the other side is a real human being. Even your children, while playing with fire, are not forgotten as the ones you love.
Pope Leo laid out some specific rules on how to deal with people wholly unlike oneself. You have the burden of proof for universal, unconditional love. It must be maintained at all times.
When you make your first step of logic in articles; that Atheists are wrong; I would also ask that you remember: Atheists are wrong, sure, but human beings containing all the qualities and abilities, deserving all the love and respect, like yourself.
All that story proves is that autonomic functions are or at least can be controlled by the brain stem. I see nothing about a soul or free will or even love. The actions of the parents, like so many cases when people insist on maintaining life in the face of great pain and hopelessness, are extremely selfish and counter productive. Better to release that soul so he can rest and eventually be reborn, hopefully into a happier life, than play holier than thou with his nonexistant brain.
Oh, and I’m an atheist and a humanist. You should do better research about the many different thoughts and philosophies that make up the community of non believers, which according to information released today, accounts for 20% of the US population.
Reva,
Let me see if I understand you correctly?
You would kill that child? Is that right?
How is that humanist?
Finally, please elaborate on how I have misrepresented atheist belief? I quoted large atheist groups, groups it sounds like you agree with.
What did I miss, Reva? Help me here.
“I wonder if they’ve met a little boy named Nicholas Coke? His heartwarming story is undoubtedly perplexing to an atheist.”
You’ll never reach atheists if you insist on thinking of them in crude stereotypes. That does nothing but cut yourself off from real connections with real human beings. I disagree with you often, but I’ve read enough of your blog to know that’s not what you want.
Mjeck,
I think you would enjoy reading Contra Gentiles. I think it might clarify why the Catholic Church rightly claims to contain in Her the truth necessary for salvation derived from natural reason and divine revelation. The words of Jesus are spoken to the world through the Church. The highest calling of the Church is to participate in the work of God in gathering all people of every age into one family united in the Truth and living by the Holy Spirit.
I gather from Stacy’s many articles that she cares for individual aithiest and Catholic alike (or all people). My guess is that she does not care much for the variety of ideas that are privately held or publicly put forth by aethiest that are clearly false. These erronious beliefs are the consequence and cause of sin and the fruit of which is suffering and death.
A person that has been told the truth has no excuse or right to act in error. Justice demands that one act according to reason when the intellect is informed of the Law of God which is the truth. There is no feeling, philosophy, legislation, or false religion, that makes what is false true or what is evil good.
I have trouble imagining the burden of being a catholic blogger trying to tell the truth without watering it down and very much caring for those that hear it.
Hi Alan,
Truth needs to be self evident. Rerum Novarum appears to be so; and that’s as far as I’ve gotten with Catholicism. If Stacy writes an article to summarize and bullet point the Contre Gentiles, I would enjoy debating if the merits held within are also self-evident.
To change my mind regarding love and kindness towards atheists and homosexuals, you’d need to change my understanding of the Sermon on the Mount.
I am not sure what this story, or this boy has anything to do with atheism? Why would atheist be confused by him?
Did I miss the definitive proof of god by his existance?
Yes the child is a medical mystery (some will say miracle, but I don’t necessarily give god credit for miracles), he should be dead. But being married to a brilliant physician I know that some things in the medical arena cannot be explained. To me that does not point to proof of god, but rather to the lack of our total understanding. We continue to learn, perhaps some day this child will lead to greater understanding in medicine.
But can you point out how this child proves god exists?
Alan R,
Thank you! I can’t add anything to it. You understand because I’m sure you share the experiences in your own way.
Mjeck,
“Truth needs to be self evident.”
Yes and no. We are expected to use the intellect and will that God gave us to want to seek truth too, and to work at finding it.
We aren’t born knowing how to add and subtract. We have to be willing to learn.
Alanl64,
“I am not sure what this story, or this boy has anything to do with atheism?”
Please refer to the third paragraph.
I looked at third paragraph, and am still lost.
Did an atheist make the claim that this boy was dead or didn’t exist?
Not being an atheist perhaps I don’t truly understand them, and this might by why I don’t see your point. I thought atheist doubted that god existed. Am I incorrect in that assumption?
If not then please explain (and please don’t refer me back to your writings because clearly I am not seeing in them what you are trying to prove) what this boy has to do with atheist, or how this boy proves the existance of god.
Then also refer to the second paragraph and the links provided…
Those atheists say that there is no soul, there is only the brain.
As far as any evidence has ever been able to determine, they say, the human mind is nothing more than a piece of software running on the computers we call brains.
Our thoughts are Newtonian machines calculating data according to decision-making algorithms.
They claim that at death the brain ceases to function, and the person ceases to exist.
Nicholas has no brain.
He is almost four years now.
His mother says he smiles at them; he knows they are there.
Even the most pertinacious atheist could not claim he’s dead or non-existent.
Thus the question in the title.
yes Stacy, I have read what you have written.
So did an atheist claim that this child was dead or did not exist? Because again my understanding is (and your link to reddit about atheism seems to complete my understanding, but any time you link to yourself I stop reading. When one is attempting to prove a point an outside source is a better option in my opinion) that atheist can question the existance of a god.
And yes the child has no brain, but he does have a brain stem. Perhaps that is enough to make him smile. I’ll ask my husband about that later and let you know what he thinks. He is a pretty smart doctor who knows more about it than I.
So I guess what I really meant to ask is why are you making this about atheism?
An atheist even in this thread said the child should be killed and that the parents are selfish. See Reva’s comment above.
Why did I make this about atheism? Thinking like that — that’s why.
Stacy, yes she said the parents were selfish. She did not say the boy should be killed. I see where you get that from, but Reva did not say that.
Sometimes allowing someone to die (which you will argue is killing, but I disagree with that) is the more humane thing to do. Is this true in this case? I can’t say as I don’t have anything beyond what you have posted here. But I have a feeling if one looked closely enough one would find a catholic who would agree with Reva.
It seems sad to me that you would exploit this story in an attempt to show what you think atheists think. I think you have missed the point of celebrating this childs life to prove what you think is a valid point.
Alan,
Are you serious? How is letting him die different from killing?
Please answer.
Stacy, yes completely serious.
I can try to explain to you, however I have learned that it is more than likely useless to even try.
That being said, withholding medical intervention is allowing someone to die. Putting a pillow over someone’s face is killing.
Allowing someone to die with dignity and on their own terms is humane. It’s not killing them, it’s allowing nature to take its course.
Now note I have never said in this child’s case that is what should happen.
Oh and FYI, the brain stem is enough to make this child smile. But let’s ask the question. Who are we keeping this child alive for? Him or the parents?
I still don’t see what this has to do with atheism though, you have not really explained it well.
Alan, either you didn’t watch the video as you implied you did, or by your own definition you think this child should be killed.
Which is it?
Honestly, did you watch the video? Did you miss this part?
There’s been very little medical intervention since birth.
A hospice nurse visits often, but aside from medications to ease his discomfort, Nicholas survives on will and love.
You said, “Is this true in this case? I can’t say as I don’t have anything beyond what you have posted here.”
I assumed that meant you watched the video.
“Who are they keeping him alive for?” What are they doing that ANY parent doesn’t do for a small child? Seriously? What?
Stacy
“Alan, either you didn’t watch the video as you implied you did, or by your own definition you think this child should be killed.
Which is it?”
I once had a friend who when presented with a statement that he thought foolish would respond “did you walk to work or take your lunch”
So Stacy, did you walk to work or take your lunch?
I watched the video. I heard the “very little medical intervention” part.
Now can you please explain how by my “own definition” this child should be “killed”? I mean first of all that just shows you didn’t read my response at all. Or you just have truly no interest in seeing what others have to say.
What other information do you have about this family that I could view?
“A hospice nurse visits often, but aside from medications to ease his discomfort, Nicholas survives on will and love.”
Discomfort? He has discomfort?
Survives on will and love? Is this a definitive statement? Quantifiable? The food, water and “medications to ease his discomfort” do nothing to assist his survival? So no he does not survive on will and love.
“Who are they keeping him alive for?” What are they doing that ANY parent doesn’t do for a small child? Seriously? What?”
Seriously?
This child is 4. Still in diapers (always will be), still needs to be carried every where, still needs to be fed (and I ask does he ingest food via the mouth and swallowing or is there some feeding mechanism?) still needs someone to do EVERYTHING for him. Now you have seven kids, so I will assume that you understand what his parents do for him that you do indeed not have to do for your children. Your children will grow and learn to do for themselves, he will not. So seriously Stacy, do you not see what his parents do for him that other parents will not have to do for thier small children?
I’ll be specific here, these parents are doing exactly what they should be doing. They are loving and caring for their child. And they should continue to do just that, and they should continue to keep it with a minimum of medical intervention.
I can indeed understand what Reva was meaning though.
Alan,
“So seriously Stacy, do you not see what his parents do for him that other parents will not have to do for thier small children?”
So what? That is no reason whatsoever to deny them basic necessities for life. Lots of kids have disabilities that require special care.
And there’s only one conclusion from Reva’s comment. Stop feeding the child, or do something more directly to kill him. How else do you “release him”? Sounds like the euphemism from The Giver. You understand what she meant? Then explain it, as it relates to Nicholas.
“I’ll be specific here…”
Good! When you asked, “Who are we keeping this child alive for? Him or the parents?” you seemed to be implying that the parents were being selfish.
Stacy
““So seriously Stacy, do you not see what his parents do for him that other parents will not have to do for thier small children?”
So what? That is no reason whatsoever to deny them basic necessities for life. Lots of kids have disabilities that require special care.”
Please show me where I said Nicholas should be denied the basic necessities. You asked what Nicholas’s parents had to do for him that parents don’t do for all small children. I merely pointed out what they do and will have to continue to do.
“And there’s only one conclusion from Reva’s comment. Stop feeding the child, or do something more directly to kill him. How else do you “release him”? Sounds like the euphemism from The Giver. You understand what she meant? Then explain it, as it relates to Nicholas.”
Not familiar with The Giver. I am familiar with euphemisms. We all use them, yourself included, so not sure why this would bother you. But yes it does appear that Reva might be suggesting Nicholas be let to die.
My understanding is that Reva thinks he is suffering, and she wants to end his suffering. I understand that. I don’t really think Nicholas is living any quality of life, and to me that is a very important thing. I don’t know if he is in pain, but the medication for his discomfort seems to suggest he might be. So some might suggest it is more humane to end his suffering.
Hi everyone. Before I begin I will say my intention is to get in and out. I noticed a lot of people commenting seem to stay on and on. Justifiably so. Oh and sorry that a year and a half later, I feel in my heart to even bother opening any cans of worms.
First of all, everyone that commented had some very good points. Also kudos to each one of you remaining your composure. It is very rare to find a blog or forum (of any topic) that is not filled with at least one person who takes it personal to a new emotional level and begin fighting like 5 year olds. Lol.
Now I will state where I (a random fellow internet surfing human being) stand. If anyone cares
Even though I consider myself to be not a religion but God fearing, Jesus loving Christian, I still feel sorry for all others in the comments box whether “official” “atheists” or not. Why? Because all of you had many excellent points, and I feel no one has said that out loud which is a shame. I personally do not understand a lot about the word atheist is or what it really means. Yet I still maintain massive amount of respects for individuals who hold their stand, and are able to express themselves productively and maturely, with a higher than average level of intelligence. So please forgive me for my lack of knowledge when it comes to speaking about “Atheists” (Especially no stereotyping intended).
I love hearing about miracles, so I googled and it brought me here. Enjoyed the blog. But a Stacy lady who was defending what appears to be her blog, no offence to her, but began acting argumentative. She started off strong. As I read from top to bottom of these comment sections, it seemed that eventually she was never able to properly admit when she was wrong, or argued points that were separate to what the previous commentator has stated or asked. I’ve also never seen a blogger this involved, when it comes to others having separate opinions from his or her own (Which can be both a good thing and a bad thing depending on the situation) But that’s besides the point.
I learned a lot reading everyone’s comments. Including learning of the possibility that all it (might) take is a brain stem, to bring someone to smile. A similar example of how I viewed that, is like creating a laptop with only a fan and saying it’s a mystery of how said laptop can be turned on, and do other things like save documents but not be able to provide more function such as connect to the internet and play videos. Which is a very fair statement to make. No one can argue it’s a legit mystery.
However, whether the mother was right or not no one will ever know. DID he really recognize his family members? We would have never been able to ask him that question directly. But that mystery seems to be beside the point. Clearly that brain stem was enough to tell his body to grow. To blink. To breathe. That is remarkable to say the least.
Some may ask me, yes even if that last statement is true, how does that prove of a God ? It (sometimes) frustrates me slightly when I hear this question because (most) people asking Don’t really ask in a sense of sincerely looking to find that out. For those few that do not fall into that category, I will say this which you may have heard before. It’s all a matter of faith. Contrary to popular belief, I consider faith not to be a lack of intelligence, but rather a lack of logic. And so, by not using “common or rational” logic does not take away my credibility or intellect. I simply choose not to use logic when it comes to the everlasting topic of God. Why? Because if we are to keep in mind for a moment that there is SO much mystery around us, whether it is medicine, the ocean, or black holes in the universe. It simply no longer made sense to me to be bothered to try and “analyze” God. Clearly the “concept” of God is impossible for our admittedly tiny human brains (believers and non-believers alike).
I will not quote scriptures, but I will try with saying what (still) teaches me every day more and more how to continue the growth of my relationship with God. A relationship with God cannot and will not ever be understood by the human mind. If all we use is our mind to learn about Gods’ existence (Or lack thereof) We will remain frozen in time in that opinion (which is totally fine too, if that’s your cup of tea) But I’m just saying…. Because every time I try to use “logic” to summarize the “theory” of a being that is infinite and higher than our logic just seem contradicting. It’s like when a 4 year old tries to understand his fathers job, when he works as some kind of financial analyst on wall street. Instead of trying, he realizes the adult is wiser than the child, and so he trusts that whatever his dad does at the stock market every day brings him his daily bread (or reeces peaces ice cream, whichever works)
Therefore what I’m trying to say is, even my own statements cannot truly be analyzed, since they state that some things in life can’t be analyzed lol. For those who have continued reading this far, and are stil here just remember that if you decide the human makeup is not composed of anything more than a brain, then you may possibly never come to understand what myself or other “believers” may say. Also remember, we are all human therefore prone to making mistakes. If you find one christian or catholic or whoever, that “ruins” your view on God or Jesus, or simply contradicts by their conduct or words, Please just forgive them and go on to seek other “possible” examples. (Or not) And if you take anything with you from everything I’ve rambled on about, is that there is nothing “ugly” or “stupid” about the idea of a God who has an unconditional love so powerful that he loves you even when you don’t believe he’s real. Not that anyone here implied that. If you ask me, that’s a pretty cool idea. Just like the one about superman being sent to earth by his father to save mankind. Only difference is one is known to be historically rea and the other is not (since we have yet to prove the totally possible theory of aliens). Debatable I know. But again, it’s what I believe. Along with a billion others (if you add up everyone from existence). One last food for though; Rule of thumb: Rumours that are only rumours, usually die out after a while. Rumours that are real? continue, even in the times of no twitter or phones, for 2,000 years 
#HowCoolIsThat
Again these are my opinions, please respect them as I have respected others as well. Please do not search for anything to be defensive about in my statements since I come in peace, I have no intentions at all to offend, and because I’m only a random nobody.
Maybe I should defend my points long enough to continue following up and writing in the comments boxes like others have so honourably done. However it’s still just the same that my continued humbled debate or lack there of do not in any way measure the level of grip to MY very on values or beliefs (If that makes sense)
Thanks for listening! Peace out.