You seem to make three distinct claims: First, that no one would believe in God without the aggressive 'preaching' of the entrenched world religions. Second, that we can neither prove no disprove the existence of God. Finally, you conclude from your first two claims that we shouldn't even consider the possibility of the existence of God. The first claim, as Professor Collier has already noted, seems to be false. Belief in the supernatural and gods of some kind is a frequently recurring cultural pattern. Strict materialism is much rarer than religious faith. Of course, this does not establish the truth or falsity of such claims, but it at least suggests that there is some sort of pragmatic or evolutionary benefit to such beliefs. Your second claim is certainly true in the sense that there are no arguments that widely accepted as establishing the truth or falsity of religious faith. Yet, it should be noted that lots of people do find some argument for or against religious faith to be...

I have a couple of comments. First, let me commend you for your sincere interest in an important topic. Second, beliefs that you are "scared into" are unlikely to last long-term. You are wise to be skeptical of such a process. Third, you don't need to 'stop thinking', but your mom is correct that you should relax. This is not an issue that you are likely to get a quick resolution on. Fourth, now for the really bad news. There is nothing resembling a consensus among philosophers on this issue. Many have thought God exists and it can be proven. Others have thought that the evidence is inconclusive, but that we should believe in God for either moral reasons (Immanuel Kant) or for prudential reasons (Blaise Pascal). Still others have thought that the evidence was inconclusive, so that we shouldn't believe. Yet, others have thought there was weight of evidence against belief in God. And finally, others have thought that all claims about God were inherently absurd. I'd encourage...

There is a long theistic tradition in philosophy that agrees that being ‘omnipotent’ and ‘being able to do absolutely anything’ are two very different concepts. Calling God ‘omnipotent’ only means that God has an infinite amount of power… however, they may be things God can’t do for reasons other than a lack of power. For example, Thomas Aquinas, one of the most influential theists in history lists a large number of things that ‘God can’t do’. [In my philosophy of religion course I call this lecture ’20 things you can do that God himself couldn’t do’]. For example, Aquinas thinks God can’t change because he is already perfect… therefore he can’t become more perfect and he wouldn’t choose to become less perfect. God can’t forget or become tired. God can’t be sorry (because he never does anything wrong to be sorry for). God can’t do wrong… etc. [you can read about this in Summa Contra Gentiles I by Aquinas] Now your interest seems to focus on the question ‘can God break the rules of logic?’...