How did you become religious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was debating Frank Turek, who I find a bit middlebrow, overconfident, etc. (I frankly do not enjoy watching him.) I seem to remember that they were sitting on stage at the time (not standing at their lecterns).

I remain curious as to what the point was that convinced you so well.

As I expected, no response.

It's this kind of two-digit IQ QED that keeps me coming back to DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was debating Frank Turek, who I find a bit middlebrow, overconfident, etc. (I frankly do not enjoy watching him.) I seem to remember that they were sitting on stage at the time (not standing at their lecterns).

I remain curious as to what the point was that convinced you so well.

As I expected, no response.

It's this kind of two-digit IQ QED that keeps me coming back to DCUM.

Nice insult! What is your point, exactly?

I can guess. Would you like me to?

[Anonymous]

Had visions. First one as a child.

I will tell you -- that will certainly do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Had visions. First one as a child.

I will tell you -- that will certainly do it.

Do you think the fact that you were a child could have been a major factor in you assuming that it was a religious vision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Had visions. First one as a child.

I will tell you -- that will certainly do it.

I knew someone who did a lot of acid and had visions for years even after quitting.

What goes on chemically in your brain is still zero evidence of a divine being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was raised Protestant, but never really felt like it made sense, even as a kid. As a teenager, I became agnostic, mostly because I couldn't reconcile so many tragedies in the world with the concept of an all-powerful, loving God. I never considered myself an atheist, because I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there, but I was comfortable with questioning and being uncertain of God's existence.

In college, I became friends with an atheist and her certainty that God didn't exist caused a knee-jerk reaction in me that God did exist. Acknowledging the certainty I felt caused me to reexamine my agnosticism, and ultimately I went looking for a religion that embraced the uncertainty of God's nature (or our understanding of God) without necessarily being uncertain of God's existence. I found Judaism, which encourages questioning and critical thinking and views those not as a crisis of faith, but as an expression of faith. I converted to Judaism and married a Jew and am now raising a Jewish family.

"I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there" - Overcoming the fear that has been instilled in you through most of your life both through direct teaching (you were raised protestant) and society/culture (christianity is the majority religion in the US) is typically the last step to realizing truth. It's a shame you have not yet been able to reach it, but I respect your search.

I think you may have misunderstood my story. It wasn't out of fear that I rejected atheism (which I never committed to) or agnosticism. I wasn't afraid of the possibility of nothingness or the uncertainty of not knowing; I embraced the unknown of God's existence and largely lived my formative years without God. I realized when presented with atheist certainty that there is no God, that I did, in fact, believe there is a God, and that my issue was simply with the Christian understanding of God, rather than God's existence itself. I'm not still reaching or searching for a truth. For me, Judaism is it.

What were your original doubts about agnosticism? How did you settle on Judaism when Christians and Muslims all are technically worshipping the same God? Did you consider any non-Abrahamic?

Uh...no. Christians do not believe this.

What God are Christians worshipping, in your opinion? And how does it differ from the Jewish and Muslim God?

Non-Christian here, but it seems like they worship Jesus more than God. And, I know, I know, Jesus IS God somehow, but my guess is that if you don't worship Jesus, you're not worshipping the same God, or not doing it correctly? *shrug*

I agree with these two previous posts. What I don't understand was the poster who said, "Uh...no. Christians do not believe this."

To this poster, you do realize that Jesus was a Jew? He was born into a Jewish family and was raised in Jewish traditions. He participated in Jewish customs and teachings, which is evident throughout the New Testament.

Take for example Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus' mission was a continuation and fulfillment of Jewish teachings.

For a non-theist, this is in part why certain aspects of religion make zero sense, especially the "Holy Trinity" idea of Christians.

Right. Jesus didn’t celebrate Christmas and obviously wouldn’t celebrate Easter.

It’s hard to tell exactly what is Christian about Jesus. Jesus didn’t worship himself

[Anonymous]

I grew up in a completely atheistic society, with no exposure to God or religion whatsoever. In elementary school, my teachers dismissed the idea of God as a relic of the past—something people believed in back when they also thought the earth was flat. But now, they told us, we have science and know better.

As I progressed into more advanced science classes in high school, I had a realization that changed everything. The world around us isn’t just a collection of random occurrences—it operates with remarkable precision, like an intricate, well-designed system. Our bodies, for example, contain multiple interdependent systems, each serving a specific function with clear purpose. And purpose-driven design always points to intelligence.

I thought about it this way: if you were walking on a deserted island and stumbled upon a system that collected rainwater and stored it in a barrel, you wouldn’t assume it appeared by accident. You’d immediately recognize that an intelligent being must have built it. Structures with purpose don’t arise from random chaos.

That’s how I began to see scientific processes—not as accidents, but as evidence of an extraordinary intelligence behind them. If it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it. That was the moment I realized—there is undeniably a Creator of this universe.

After that realization, I felt a need to connect with the God I had discovered. I had the opportunity to spend two months living in a monastery, an experience that changed me in ways I never expected. It wasn’t through intellectual reasoning that I found God there, but through my heart. That time brought me a deep sense of joy and led me to completely re-evaluate my life. It’s an experience that will always stay with me, and I am deeply grateful for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a completely atheistic society, with no exposure to God or religion whatsoever. In elementary school, my teachers dismissed the idea of God as a relic of the past—something people believed in back when they also thought the earth was flat. But now, they told us, we have science and know better.

As I progressed into more advanced science classes in high school, I had a realization that changed everything. The world around us isn’t just a collection of random occurrences—it operates with remarkable precision, like an intricate, well-designed system. Our bodies, for example, contain multiple interdependent systems, each serving a specific function with clear purpose. And purpose-driven design always points to intelligence.

I thought about it this way: if you were walking on a deserted island and stumbled upon a system that collected rainwater and stored it in a barrel, you wouldn’t assume it appeared by accident. You’d immediately recognize that an intelligent being must have built it. Structures with purpose don’t arise from random chaos.

That’s how I began to see scientific processes—not as accidents, but as evidence of an extraordinary intelligence behind them. If it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it. That was the moment I realized—there is undeniably a Creator of this universe.

After that realization, I felt a need to connect with the God I had discovered. I had the opportunity to spend two months living in a monastery, an experience that changed me in ways I never expected. It wasn’t through intellectual reasoning that I found God there, but through my heart. That time brought me a deep sense of joy and led me to completely re-evaluate my life. It’s an experience that will always stay with me, and I am deeply grateful for it.

That's the watchmaker argument.

1. If that is your worldview, please name one thing that isn't "designed". You can't, because you believe everything was designed, in which case there would be no way to tell the difference, rendering the conclusion moot.

2. In addition to that false logic, you then make the gigantic leap to the conclusion that the "designs" were created by a supernatural being, who is outside of time and space and directly involved in our lives, with no evidence or logic for that.

3. Then, beyond that, you claim "if it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it." which puts you in to infinite regress as then what created the creator? If suddenly one is not necessary, then one is never necessary for "creation".

Three strikes, you're out. It's a poor logical foundation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a completely atheistic society, with no exposure to God or religion whatsoever. In elementary school, my teachers dismissed the idea of God as a relic of the past—something people believed in back when they also thought the earth was flat. But now, they told us, we have science and know better.

As I progressed into more advanced science classes in high school, I had a realization that changed everything. The world around us isn’t just a collection of random occurrences—it operates with remarkable precision, like an intricate, well-designed system. Our bodies, for example, contain multiple interdependent systems, each serving a specific function with clear purpose. And purpose-driven design always points to intelligence.

I thought about it this way: if you were walking on a deserted island and stumbled upon a system that collected rainwater and stored it in a barrel, you wouldn’t assume it appeared by accident. You’d immediately recognize that an intelligent being must have built it. Structures with purpose don’t arise from random chaos.

That’s how I began to see scientific processes—not as accidents, but as evidence of an extraordinary intelligence behind them. If it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it. That was the moment I realized—there is undeniably a Creator of this universe.

After that realization, I felt a need to connect with the God I had discovered. I had the opportunity to spend two months living in a monastery, an experience that changed me in ways I never expected. It wasn’t through intellectual reasoning that I found God there, but through my heart. That time brought me a deep sense of joy and led me to completely re-evaluate my life. It’s an experience that will always stay with me, and I am deeply grateful for it.

That's the watchmaker argument.

1. If that is your worldview, please name one thing that isn't "designed". You can't, because you believe everything was designed, in which case there would be no way to tell the difference, rendering the conclusion moot.

2. In addition to that false logic, you then make the gigantic leap to the conclusion that the "designs" were created by a supernatural being, who is outside of time and space and directly involved in our lives, with no evidence or logic for that.

3. Then, beyond that, you claim "if it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it." which puts you in to infinite regress as then what created the creator? If suddenly one is not necessary, then one is never necessary for "creation".

Three strikes, you're out. It's a poor logical foundation.

But it feels good!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a completely atheistic society, with no exposure to God or religion whatsoever. In elementary school, my teachers dismissed the idea of God as a relic of the past—something people believed in back when they also thought the earth was flat. But now, they told us, we have science and know better.

As I progressed into more advanced science classes in high school, I had a realization that changed everything. The world around us isn’t just a collection of random occurrences—it operates with remarkable precision, like an intricate, well-designed system. Our bodies, for example, contain multiple interdependent systems, each serving a specific function with clear purpose. And purpose-driven design always points to intelligence.

I thought about it this way: if you were walking on a deserted island and stumbled upon a system that collected rainwater and stored it in a barrel, you wouldn’t assume it appeared by accident. You’d immediately recognize that an intelligent being must have built it. Structures with purpose don’t arise from random chaos.

That’s how I began to see scientific processes—not as accidents, but as evidence of an extraordinary intelligence behind them. If it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it. That was the moment I realized—there is undeniably a Creator of this universe.

After that realization, I felt a need to connect with the God I had discovered. I had the opportunity to spend two months living in a monastery, an experience that changed me in ways I never expected. It wasn’t through intellectual reasoning that I found God there, but through my heart. That time brought me a deep sense of joy and led me to completely re-evaluate my life. It’s an experience that will always stay with me, and I am deeply grateful for it.

That's the watchmaker argument.

1. If that is your worldview, please name one thing that isn't "designed". You can't, because you believe everything was designed, in which case there would be no way to tell the difference, rendering the conclusion moot.

2. In addition to that false logic, you then make the gigantic leap to the conclusion that the "designs" were created by a supernatural being, who is outside of time and space and directly involved in our lives, with no evidence or logic for that.

3. Then, beyond that, you claim "if it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it." which puts you in to infinite regress as then what created the creator? If suddenly one is not necessary, then one is never necessary for "creation".

Three strikes, you're out. It's a poor logical foundation.

And it ignores that for such a "watchmaker" argument, he's a terrible designer/engineer. One would expect such a powerful entity capable of creating the universe to have perfected systems, instead they are haphazard and flawed. We humble humans already have better designs on many things than nature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a completely atheistic society, with no exposure to God or religion whatsoever. In elementary school, my teachers dismissed the idea of God as a relic of the past—something people believed in back when they also thought the earth was flat. But now, they told us, we have science and know better.

As I progressed into more advanced science classes in high school, I had a realization that changed everything. The world around us isn’t just a collection of random occurrences—it operates with remarkable precision, like an intricate, well-designed system. Our bodies, for example, contain multiple interdependent systems, each serving a specific function with clear purpose. And purpose-driven design always points to intelligence.

I thought about it this way: if you were walking on a deserted island and stumbled upon a system that collected rainwater and stored it in a barrel, you wouldn’t assume it appeared by accident. You’d immediately recognize that an intelligent being must have built it. Structures with purpose don’t arise from random chaos.

That’s how I began to see scientific processes—not as accidents, but as evidence of an extraordinary intelligence behind them. If it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it. That was the moment I realized—there is undeniably a Creator of this universe.

After that realization, I felt a need to connect with the God I had discovered. I had the opportunity to spend two months living in a monastery, an experience that changed me in ways I never expected. It wasn’t through intellectual reasoning that I found God there, but through my heart. That time brought me a deep sense of joy and led me to completely re-evaluate my life. It’s an experience that will always stay with me, and I am deeply grateful for it.

That's the watchmaker argument.

1. If that is your worldview, please name one thing that isn't "designed". You can't, because you believe everything was designed, in which case there would be no way to tell the difference, rendering the conclusion moot.

2. In addition to that false logic, you then make the gigantic leap to the conclusion that the "designs" were created by a supernatural being, who is outside of time and space and directly involved in our lives, with no evidence or logic for that.

3. Then, beyond that, you claim "if it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it." which puts you in to infinite regress as then what created the creator? If suddenly one is not necessary, then one is never necessary for "creation".

Three strikes, you're out. It's a poor logical foundation.

And it ignores that for such a "watchmaker" argument, he's a terrible designer/engineer. One would expect such a powerful entity capable of creating the universe to have perfected systems, instead they are haphazard and flawed. We humble humans already have better designs on many things than nature.

But -- I learned it at church -- so it must be true!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a completely atheistic society, with no exposure to God or religion whatsoever. In elementary school, my teachers dismissed the idea of God as a relic of the past—something people believed in back when they also thought the earth was flat. But now, they told us, we have science and know better.

As I progressed into more advanced science classes in high school, I had a realization that changed everything. The world around us isn’t just a collection of random occurrences—it operates with remarkable precision, like an intricate, well-designed system. Our bodies, for example, contain multiple interdependent systems, each serving a specific function with clear purpose. And purpose-driven design always points to intelligence.

I thought about it this way: if you were walking on a deserted island and stumbled upon a system that collected rainwater and stored it in a barrel, you wouldn’t assume it appeared by accident. You’d immediately recognize that an intelligent being must have built it. Structures with purpose don’t arise from random chaos.

That’s how I began to see scientific processes—not as accidents, but as evidence of an extraordinary intelligence behind them. If it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it. That was the moment I realized—there is undeniably a Creator of this universe.

After that realization, I felt a need to connect with the God I had discovered. I had the opportunity to spend two months living in a monastery, an experience that changed me in ways I never expected. It wasn’t through intellectual reasoning that I found God there, but through my heart. That time brought me a deep sense of joy and led me to completely re-evaluate my life. It’s an experience that will always stay with me, and I am deeply grateful for it.

That's the watchmaker argument.

1. If that is your worldview, please name one thing that isn't "designed". You can't, because you believe everything was designed, in which case there would be no way to tell the difference, rendering the conclusion moot.

2. In addition to that false logic, you then make the gigantic leap to the conclusion that the "designs" were created by a supernatural being, who is outside of time and space and directly involved in our lives, with no evidence or logic for that.

3. Then, beyond that, you claim "if it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it." which puts you in to infinite regress as then what created the creator? If suddenly one is not necessary, then one is never necessary for "creation".

Three strikes, you're out. It's a poor logical foundation.

And it ignores that for such a "watchmaker" argument, he's a terrible designer/engineer. One would expect such a powerful entity capable of creating the universe to have perfected systems, instead they are haphazard and flawed. We humble humans already have better designs on many things than nature.

But -- I learned it at church -- so it must be true!

And in earlier PP's case, they thought it up themselves (the watchmaker argument), so in their twisted logic, it's even more likely to
be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a completely atheistic society, with no exposure to God or religion whatsoever. In elementary school, my teachers dismissed the idea of God as a relic of the past—something people believed in back when they also thought the earth was flat. But now, they told us, we have science and know better.

As I progressed into more advanced science classes in high school, I had a realization that changed everything. The world around us isn’t just a collection of random occurrences—it operates with remarkable precision, like an intricate, well-designed system. Our bodies, for example, contain multiple interdependent systems, each serving a specific function with clear purpose. And purpose-driven design always points to intelligence.

I thought about it this way: if you were walking on a deserted island and stumbled upon a system that collected rainwater and stored it in a barrel, you wouldn’t assume it appeared by accident. You’d immediately recognize that an intelligent being must have built it. Structures with purpose don’t arise from random chaos.

That’s how I began to see scientific processes—not as accidents, but as evidence of an extraordinary intelligence behind them. If it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it. That was the moment I realized—there is undeniably a Creator of this universe.

After that realization, I felt a need to connect with the God I had discovered. I had the opportunity to spend two months living in a monastery, an experience that changed me in ways I never expected. It wasn’t through intellectual reasoning that I found God there, but through my heart. That time brought me a deep sense of joy and led me to completely re-evaluate my life. It’s an experience that will always stay with me, and I am deeply grateful for it.

That's the watchmaker argument.

1. If that is your worldview, please name one thing that isn't "designed". You can't, because you believe everything was designed, in which case there would be no way to tell the difference, rendering the conclusion moot.

2. In addition to that false logic, you then make the gigantic leap to the conclusion that the "designs" were created by a supernatural being, who is outside of time and space and directly involved in our lives, with no evidence or logic for that.

3. Then, beyond that, you claim "if it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it." which puts you in to infinite regress as then what created the creator? If suddenly one is not necessary, then one is never necessary for "creation".

Three strikes, you're out. It's a poor logical foundation.

And it ignores that for such a "watchmaker" argument, he's a terrible designer/engineer. One would expect such a powerful entity capable of creating the universe to have perfected systems, instead they are haphazard and flawed. We humble humans already have better designs on many things than nature.

But -- I learned it at church -- so it must be true!

I did not learn it in church. Did you not read my post? This is what prompted me to seek church. The experience I had in church was life defining, not the experience leading to it. Do you really not see how it is absolutely irrelevant whether my logic was off or not? (If ya all had better arguments I'd be up for a debate on my logic lol. But lets just assume it's flawed. Sure.)

If religion and faith were built on logic and science, I would not be interested in it. It would be very self limiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a completely atheistic society, with no exposure to God or religion whatsoever. In elementary school, my teachers dismissed the idea of God as a relic of the past—something people believed in back when they also thought the earth was flat. But now, they told us, we have science and know better.

As I progressed into more advanced science classes in high school, I had a realization that changed everything. The world around us isn’t just a collection of random occurrences—it operates with remarkable precision, like an intricate, well-designed system. Our bodies, for example, contain multiple interdependent systems, each serving a specific function with clear purpose. And purpose-driven design always points to intelligence.

I thought about it this way: if you were walking on a deserted island and stumbled upon a system that collected rainwater and stored it in a barrel, you wouldn’t assume it appeared by accident. You’d immediately recognize that an intelligent being must have built it. Structures with purpose don’t arise from random chaos.

That’s how I began to see scientific processes—not as accidents, but as evidence of an extraordinary intelligence behind them. If it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it. That was the moment I realized—there is undeniably a Creator of this universe.

After that realization, I felt a need to connect with the God I had discovered. I had the opportunity to spend two months living in a monastery, an experience that changed me in ways I never expected. It wasn’t through intellectual reasoning that I found God there, but through my heart. That time brought me a deep sense of joy and led me to completely re-evaluate my life. It’s an experience that will always stay with me, and I am deeply grateful for it.

That's the watchmaker argument.

1. If that is your worldview, please name one thing that isn't "designed". You can't, because you believe everything was designed, in which case there would be no way to tell the difference, rendering the conclusion moot.

2. In addition to that false logic, you then make the gigantic leap to the conclusion that the "designs" were created by a supernatural being, who is outside of time and space and directly involved in our lives, with no evidence or logic for that.

3. Then, beyond that, you claim "if it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it." which puts you in to infinite regress as then what created the creator? If suddenly one is not necessary, then one is never necessary for "creation".

Three strikes, you're out. It's a poor logical foundation.

And it ignores that for such a "watchmaker" argument, he's a terrible designer/engineer. One would expect such a powerful entity capable of creating the universe to have perfected systems, instead they are haphazard and flawed. We humble humans already have better designs on many things than nature.

But -- I learned it at church -- so it must be true!

I did not learn it in church. Did you not read my post? This is what prompted me to seek church. The experience I had in church was life defining, not the experience leading to it. Do you really not see how it is absolutely irrelevant whether my logic was off or not? (If ya all had better arguments I'd be up for a debate on my logic lol. But lets just assume it's flawed. Sure.)

If religion and faith were built on logic and science, I would not be interested in it. It would be very self limiting.

That last sentence - that has my chin on the floor. Is this a genuine post? I cannot believe it is.

Hopefully you don't make any other decisions that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a completely atheistic society, with no exposure to God or religion whatsoever. In elementary school, my teachers dismissed the idea of God as a relic of the past—something people believed in back when they also thought the earth was flat. But now, they told us, we have science and know better.

As I progressed into more advanced science classes in high school, I had a realization that changed everything. The world around us isn’t just a collection of random occurrences—it operates with remarkable precision, like an intricate, well-designed system. Our bodies, for example, contain multiple interdependent systems, each serving a specific function with clear purpose. And purpose-driven design always points to intelligence.

I thought about it this way: if you were walking on a deserted island and stumbled upon a system that collected rainwater and stored it in a barrel, you wouldn’t assume it appeared by accident. You’d immediately recognize that an intelligent being must have built it. Structures with purpose don’t arise from random chaos.

That’s how I began to see scientific processes—not as accidents, but as evidence of an extraordinary intelligence behind them. If it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it. That was the moment I realized—there is undeniably a Creator of this universe.

After that realization, I felt a need to connect with the God I had discovered. I had the opportunity to spend two months living in a monastery, an experience that changed me in ways I never expected. It wasn’t through intellectual reasoning that I found God there, but through my heart. That time brought me a deep sense of joy and led me to completely re-evaluate my life. It’s an experience that will always stay with me, and I am deeply grateful for it.

That's the watchmaker argument.

1. If that is your worldview, please name one thing that isn't "designed". You can't, because you believe everything was designed, in which case there would be no way to tell the difference, rendering the conclusion moot.

2. In addition to that false logic, you then make the gigantic leap to the conclusion that the "designs" were created by a supernatural being, who is outside of time and space and directly involved in our lives, with no evidence or logic for that.

3. Then, beyond that, you claim "if it takes intelligence to understand the world, then it must have taken an even greater intelligence to create it." which puts you in to infinite regress as then what created the creator? If suddenly one is not necessary, then one is never necessary for "creation".

Three strikes, you're out. It's a poor logical foundation.

And it ignores that for such a "watchmaker" argument, he's a terrible designer/engineer. One would expect such a powerful entity capable of creating the universe to have perfected systems, instead they are haphazard and flawed. We humble humans already have better designs on many things than nature.

But -- I learned it at church -- so it must be true!

I did not learn it in church. Did you not read my post? This is what prompted me to seek church. The experience I had in church was life defining, not the experience leading to it. Do you really not see how it is absolutely irrelevant whether my logic was off or not? (If ya all had better arguments I'd be up for a debate on my logic lol. But lets just assume it's flawed. Sure.)

If religion and faith were built on logic and science, I would not be interested in it. It would be very self limiting.

"it is absolutely irrelevant whether my logic was off or not" says it all. If you had used logic, you would understand why the watchmaker argument fails.

"As I progressed into more advanced science classes in high school, I had a realization that changed everything. The world around us isn’t just a collection of random occurrences—it operates with remarkable precision, like an intricate, well-designed system. Our bodies, for example, contain multiple interdependent systems, each serving a specific function with clear purpose. And purpose-driven design always points to intelligence." If you were actually versed in science beyond high school level, you would have learned that "the world around us" is NOT well-designed, refuting the very premise of your epiphany.

"I thought about it this way: if you were walking on a deserted island and stumbled upon a system that collected rainwater and stored it in a barrel, you wouldn’t assume it appeared by accident. You’d immediately recognize that an intelligent being must have built it. Structures with purpose don’t arise from random chaos." This is a completely flawed premise to begin with.