I read an interesting article the other day, it stated that the burden of proof is on religious individuals. It says that if i told you i could fly the burden would be on me to prove that fact, now suppose i said that i knew it on faith. Most people would discount me as a lunatic or toss me out the window and say "well fly then".
For those of you that have seen the matrix, i feel that one of the essential questions of that movie, is for the red pill of blue pill, or put another way are you content with reality as you conceive it or would you prefer objective truth. This question is posed by multiple philosophers with varying conclusions, to me, the real question becomes what is happiness, an emotional state, or knowing truth. This question is crucial when considering the validity of divine providence. If happiness can be found in ignoring reality and (crucial and) in the belief of a supreme being, than religion should be something that is adopted by all, however if happiness is found in knowledge of truth then while not disproving the need for religion it does require then proof of the existence of divine beings independent of their relationship to us.
As i have watched my friends leave on the belief in something that i struggle for a knowledge for, i wish that i had either a. their ability to ignore reality, or b. their knowledge of truth. Those of you that have followed this from the beginning know that i posted several logical arguments for the existence of God, yet the reality is the only absolute proof i have is not the existence of a diving being but is instead on the happiness that religion entails. I don't know if a God exists or even if he/she/it knows of my existence, however i do know the comfort that a belief in those two things can give because i have observed, witnessed and felt it, yet that could just as easily be attributed to evolutionary biology as divine intervention. With that being said however there is a clear distinction between knowledge and belief, yet i still wish my belief was as solid as my friends' appears to be, because to this day i struggle.

 Next,
Definitional debates are something i am not too fond of, yet they do have their place, for without them our ability to communicate would be distinctly hampered. Yet in many cases they have failed to reach a conclusion, in no words are these more clear than emotions. What is love or happiness? The inherent problem with trying to answer any of these questions, is that the words themselves seek to be symbolic of something that no two people have experienced. When we say that we are hot, we are appealing to previous experience of the individual we are talking too, specifically that of being near heat. However, when we say "i love you", we are relying on a similar experience being present in the individual we are referencing. This would not be a problem except for the fact that emotions are inherently internal, there is no reason why that individual we are referencing has even felt something similar to us let alone the same thing.
A great example of this exists in colors because of their nonessential characteristic to items (or that i can have both a blue or a yellow ball), the question is, is there any indication that you and i are both observing the same color, or is what i view as blue and call it as such, you view as yellow and call it blue. So when i say that i have a blue ball, there is no reason to suggest that you have a ball that i will view as blue.
Yet descriptions of our emotions (emotions, another thing i am none too fond of) are useful on the off chance that the individual we are communicating is feeling the same thing or something similar and thus able to understand. Yet perfect understanding is physically impossible, because our emotions are shaped by our experiences, something that is different for everyone, so while someone may sympathize with your emotions they can never empathize. Yet (yes i just started all sentences in this paragraph with the word yet), our inability to communicate our emotions perfectly, does not remove the existence of that emotion or its prevalence in our lives.
My condolences if you read all of that because it probably means you have no life. And i probably don't have one either for that matter because i spent much more time writing it then you did reading it.And if you can understand all of that, wait i forgot you can't perfectly understand the reasoning behind my arguments, both because of my terrible ability in expressing and articulating them, the shakiness of the arguments themselves, and the fact that you can't perfectly understand anything i do, because you aren't me.