"This was an honest spelling mistake"

I was giving you the benifit of the doubt on that, but thank you for saying so.

"God was created in the mind of man, and no one has yet to prove otherwise."

Do you mean the idea of God, or God Himself? if you mean the idea of God, then of course. likewise the idea of chance was created in the mind of man. in fact, all ideas are a product of the mind of man, insofar as it is what happens when the mind thinks about something, that is what it means to be an idea. on the other hand, if you ment God Himself, how can you prove that? if you mean God exist in and of Himself only because man thought it up, well then why not the same for everything else?

"like other evolutionary baggage I think its no longer needed"

give me some other examples of evolutionary baggage please

"So youre saying you'd rather live life happy and ignorant, than well im not sure why knowing the truth is so scary for you... "

No, thats exactly what im NOT saying. I'm saying truth IS a good thing in and of itself. my point is that if you belive survival of the fittest is the important driving force in life (i dont belive this) then i must conclude that you think truth subordanate to that. if you think truth more important than survival of the fittest, then i am asking you on what basis do you claim its superiority?

"brainwashing eachother into believeing in fairy tales"

if by brainwashing you mean proclaiming as fact half-baked hypothisiss baised on little-to-no empirical evidance, well....at least I'll admit that what i belive has eliments of faith in it, how about you?

"You seem to agree with the random nature of the universe, but you're making an outrageous claim that the world really doesnt work that way. I think the burden of proof is on You."

no, i dont agree at all with the "random" nature of the universe. i dont think there is anything that is truly random, i dont belive in chance, luck, or coincidences. i also think the claims you are making are at least as outrageous as you seem to think mine are. You say, nothing + nobody + blind chance = everything. I say God is the fundamental explination of all things. The burden of proof rest on both of us.

Concerning my question, let me reproduce it, word for word, as i first heard it:

"The fourth point of naturalism, it will be remembered, was that science had undermined not only what naturalism regards as the mythological accretions of religion, but also what naturalism regards as its essence. that essence is, to the naturalists, Theism and immortality. in so far as natural science can give a satisfactory account of man as a purely biological entity, it excludes the soul and therefore excludes immortality. that, no doubt, is why the scientists who are most, or most nearly, concerned with man himself are the most anti-religious.
now most assuredly if naturalism is right then it is at this point, at the study of man himself, that it wins its final victory and overthrows all our hopes: not only our hope of immortality, but our hope of finding significance in our lives here and now. On the other hand, if naturalism is wrong, it will be here that it will reveal its fatal philosophical defect, and that is what i think it does.
on the fully naturalistic view all events are determined by laws. our logical behaviour, in other words our thoughts, and our ethical behaviour, including our ideals as well as our acts of will, are governed by biochemical laws; these, inturn, by physical laws which are themselves actuarial statements about the lawless movements of matter. these units never intended to produce the regular universe we see: the law of averages (successor to lucretius's exiguum clinamen) has produced it out of the collision of these random variations in movement. the physical universe never intended to produce organisms. the relevant chemicals on earth, and the sun's heat, thus juxtaposed, gave rise to this disquieting desease of matter: organization. natural selection, operating on the minute differences between one organism and another, blundered into that sort of phosphorescence or mirage which we call consciousness - and that, in some cortexes beneath some skulls, at certain moments, still in obedience to physical laws, but to physical laws now filtered through laws of a more complicated kind, takes the form we call thought. such, for instance, is the origin of this paper: such was the origin of Professor Price's paper [the paper he is responding to]. what we should speak of as his 'thoughts' were mearly the last link of a causal chain in which all the previous links were irrational. he spoke as he did because the matter of his brain was behaving in a certain way: and the whole history of the universe up to that moment had forced it to behave in that way. what we called his thought was essentially a phenomenon of the same sort as his other secretions - the form which the vast irrational process of nature was bound to take at a particular point of space and time." - C.S. Lewis in the essay "Religion without Dogma?" contained in the book titled, "God in the Dock"

"the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance.......then how on earth can i know that to be true?"

"What is the ``that'' for which you are attempting to ascertain truth?"

If the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance, and by firing producing the idea that "the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance", then how can i know that the statment "the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance" to be a true statment?

better?

"Religion provides us with neither of those."

Of course not. i am not merly concerned with the naturalist point of view because it is against my religion. i belive it also to be unscientific.

"Science does not preclude the fact that a creator exists, but it does preclude the fact that he interacts with us on a regular basis, unless he always does so in accordance with the rules of nature as we observe them, in which case, that creator would be no different than the nature of the universe itself."

but if you remember that He created the laws of nature, and furthermore, created the universe which interacts with them, then it is extreamly logical that He would interact with us and communicate with us through them.

"May I take a brief aside and remind everyone that natural selection is the exact opposite of chance."

i hope my restatment of the question has cleared this up, but just in case, i will elaborate on what i mean by evolution involving chance.

lets look at a few examples, we have laws which goveren our country, but they dont produce criminals, or more precisly, they dont produce the people which they goveren, do they? or take math, you can know and understand all the mathmatical equasions in the world, but it doesnt mean anything untill you actualy mesure something, or count something, right? just because i do math concerning my bank account doesnt mean more money gets put into it. likewise, there are laws wich goveren the universe, but they did not produce the universe. laws can state that "if X then Y" but they cant produce X out of thin air. so if your not saying that X was produced by "chance" then where did it come from?

Hope I've made myself clearer.