Is there a god?

[Aradhus]

Friday 17th Feb 20.30 ......Still no God

Prove that.

Saturday 18th Feb 6:35 pm ... Still no proof of god.

Proof of delusional behaviour though where people have entire belief systems based on what God wants of them, even though they've never met this god, have had no interactions with him and have no evidence of his existence.

[BigBallinStalin]

Friday 17th Feb 20.30 ......Still no God

Prove that.

Saturday 18th Feb 6:35 pm ... Still no proof of god.

Proof of delusional behaviour though where people have entire belief systems based on what God wants of them, even though they've never met this god, have had no interactions with him and have no evidence of his existence.

God told me to tell you that ur a dumb dumb.

[PLAYER57832]

Friday 17th Feb 20.30 ......Still no God

Prove that.

Saturday 18th Feb 6:35 pm ... Still no proof of god.

Proof of delusional behaviour though where people have entire belief systems based on what God wants of them, even though they've never met this god, have had no interactions with him and have no evidence of his existence.

WE, (several believers here of varied faiths) have all explained that there is a big difference between "no interactions" and "interactions we can show to others, or WANT to show to others" (some things ARE too personal to trot out on the internet)

Your continued failure to claim that is not so.. does not speak of scientific reasoning or thinking.

[comic boy]

Friday 17th Feb 20.30 ......Still no God

Prove that.

You can't prove a negative.

Exactly
Its just a ruse to disguise the weakness of her argument , most people grow out of such tactics in primary school

Oh, you mean atheist tactics?

Because that is the game you play... "prove your position"

We cannot.. but well, you are supposed to just accept that we are right and you are wrong because we don't happen to like any proof you provide.

1) You haven't provided any proof that there is a God.
2) In the abscence of such proof , based on probability and logic , I consequently reject the proposition.
3) Because I consider it futile and unecessary to offer an alternative proposition, I dont require proof to defend my position.
Its pretty simple , a positive proposition requires proof , a negative stance does not , suck it up !

[Aradhus]

Friday 17th Feb 20.30 ......Still no God

Prove that.

Saturday 18th Feb 6:35 pm ... Still no proof of god.

Proof of delusional behaviour though where people have entire belief systems based on what God wants of them, even though they've never met this god, have had no interactions with him and have no evidence of his existence.

WE, (several believers here of varied faiths) have all explained that there is a big difference between "no interactions" and "interactions we can show to others, or WANT to show to others" (some things ARE too personal to trot out on the internet)

Your continued failure to claim that is not so.. does not speak of scientific reasoning or thinking.

You've had interactions with god? I bet he talks to you all the time, huh? In your head right? A big spooky voice? Why does he interact with you and not me? It's because you're special right?

[PLAYER57832]

Do you have kids? If so, then you know that you can say the EXACT same thing to 5 and each will hear something different... even when you simplify in the extreme. Jesus words and teachings are far from simple. That is why we have more than one Gospel.

Yes but my kids would not claim to be beyond contradiction. Here you actually admit that the Gospels message changes between writers and in doing so admit it is perfectly possible for it to contradict itself.

You missed the point.

The comparison is not to the kids being beyond contradiction, it is to you being inconsistant. The point is, you said the exact same thing to them and they hear differently. So, too, is the Gospel given by one person, Jesus.. but heard by different people.

I'm confused. Is it possible for one of the disciples to have heard wrongly?

Nice try at a trap.
People are different. People hear the same words and get different meanings. I believe that religion, like many very complext things is best seen through the eyes of many.
You will NOT find disagreement among the disciples on the biggest points. You do find some disagreements, often disagreements they held at the time when Jesus was alive on some various issues. Jesus point, in them all was that they were each valid, within limits.

This is why I can accept that the Roman Catholic Church is a legitimate church that answers a need for many people even though I and not Roman Catholic and fundamentally disagree with many of its tenets. The points where we disagree were laid out as areas where even the disciples disagreed.

NO disciple denies that Christ died on the cross, preaches forgiveness of sins, etc.

THE truth of Christ is that he died on the Cross, that we are saved as a result. Beyond that, he gave us 2 new commandments, which he put above the others.. to love God and to love our neighbors.

Ironic that you think this is a good thing. Is loving God more important than "Thou shalt not kill". Also why is loving your neighbour important at all?

#1. Murder is just one way of NOT loving they neighbor.
#2. Its not actually "thou shalt not kill", though that is often how Christians interpret it.. its really "don't murder" (look to Jewish texts for the distinction)
#3. Because we live with and among other people.

Same difference, is loving God more important than not murdering people? If an evil dictator loved God and killed millions of innocent people, would that be worse than a great leader who saved millions of innocent people but did not love God?[/quote]
You are drawing lines where there are none. Loving God and loving one's neighbors are the ultimate laws, explained early, in part by the Ten Commandments. The earlier commandments were only part of the rules. Its not that loving God is more important than the other, its that the other is part of loving God and one' s neighbors.

But, that second part gets into the distinction between right and wrong versus forgiveness. Any sin can be forgiven, even great sins. My church (distinct from the Roman Catholic view) holds that no action we can do on Earth is worthy of gaining forgiveness, it comes purely through grace. It is not that saving millions is unimportant, but the real point is that someone who is truly saved simply would not kill millions intentionally. And.. we like to think that a person with a heart good enough to save millions would find a path to Christ and God, (though that is, perhaps, not certain).

I am not expert enough on Roman Catholic doctrine to explain it, but they do tend to talk about doing works (pennance) that will "undo" sin.

Contradiction number 3, lets get this show on the road...

Has anyone seen God?

Explain the context.

It's a simple question.[/quote]
No. Why would seeing or not seeing God be important?

[PLAYER57832]

Oh, you mean atheist tactics?

Because that is the game you play... "prove your position"

We cannot.. but well, you are supposed to just accept that we are right and you are wrong because we don't happen to like any proof you provide.

1) You haven't provided any proof that there is a God.

No, its not currently possible to do so.
I HAVE cited evidence, much as many "out there" questions in the initial stages have only some bare evidence, not firm proof.
(plate techtonics, black holes, etc. -- though yes, the proof of God is more tenuous now)

2) In the abscence of such proof , based on probability and logic , I consequently reject the proposition.

That is not logic, it is bias. It is a reasonable assumption, but not a scientifically valid one, at least no more valid than mine, because you have no proof or evidence, not really.

3) Because I consider it futile and unecessary to offer an alternative proposition, I dont require proof to defend my position.

This is pure opinion. As such it is valid, but when you attempt to claim it is superior logic or science.. you fail.

Its pretty simple , a positive proposition requires proof , a negative stance does not , suck it up !

Nope, no such requirement truly exists. In fact, just the opposite. Since the negative can never be proven, claiming it as the ultimate logic is.. illogical. It is merely the fallback of necessity. It can be believed only so long as no other proof evidences itself.

Per that, most of us have said, over and over, that we do have evidence for ourselves.. it just is not evidence we can readily trot out on the internet. Claiming your position is superior because you cannot see proof we have is like claiming that an experiment done in the next room did not happen because you yourself did not witness it.

[Aradhus]

Player, what proof do you have that your interactions were with God, and not with, Satan, or any demon, or any number of beings that might exist? Or you know, proof that your interactions aren't just delusions.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, what proof do you have that your interactions were with God, and not with, Satan, or any demon, or any number of beings that might exist?

for this, it does not matter, since any of the above would qualify for the definition of "God" to a believer.

Or you know, proof that your interactions aren't just delusions.

Never said I could prove it, did I? But the point is, you cannot prove they ARE just delusions (and note that IS a "positive" claim, not asking to prove a negative!)

[comic boy]

Religious faith depends , amongst other things , on social, physchological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities,evidence or logic.

Sat 18th Feb 20 .22
Still no evidence for 'God' !

[PLAYER57832]

Religious faith depends , amongst other things , on social, physchological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities,evidence or logic.

Yes, exactly like atheism and any other belief, including many that have nothing at all to do with religion.

[pmchugh]

I'm confused. Is it possible for one of the disciples to have heard wrongly?

Nice try at a trap.
People are different. People hear the same words and get different meanings. I believe that religion, like many very complext things is best seen through the eyes of many.
You will NOT find disagreement among the disciples on the biggest points. You do find some disagreements, often disagreements they held at the time when Jesus was alive on some various issues. Jesus point, in them all was that they were each valid, within limits.

This is why I can accept that the Roman Catholic Church is a legitimate church that answers a need for many people even though I and not Roman Catholic and fundamentally disagree with many of its tenets. The points where we disagree were laid out as areas where even the disciples disagreed.

NO disciple denies that Christ died on the cross, preaches forgiveness of sins, etc.

The people who wrote (the least crazy) part of the Bible disagreed, yet they do not contradict each other?

You are drawing lines where there are none. Loving God and loving one's neighbors are the ultimate laws, explained early, in part by the Ten Commandments. The earlier commandments were only part of the rules. Its not that loving God is more important than the other, its that the other is part of loving God and one' s neighbors.

So if I don't love God and all of my neighbors then I cannot lead a morally just life?

But, that second part gets into the distinction between right and wrong versus forgiveness. Any sin can be forgiven, even great sins. My church (distinct from the Roman Catholic view) holds that no action we can do on Earth is worthy of gaining forgiveness, it comes purely through grace. It is not that saving millions is unimportant, but the real point is that someone who is truly saved simply would not kill millions intentionally. And.. we like to think that a person with a heart good enough to save millions would find a path to Christ and God, (though that is, perhaps, not certain).

Well done, a perfect illustration of the no true Scotsman argument.

Contradiction number 3, lets get this show on the road...

Has anyone seen God?

Explain the context.

It's a simple question.

No. Why would seeing or not seeing God be important?

It is not important in the slightest. Except that there is a clear contradiction in the bible about it, if you want me to recite all the verses I will.

You keep trying to say that they agree on the main issues but that is completely irrelevant. The bible contradicts itself and that is pretty much fact. If you are willing to admit that on some (perhaps minor) issues the Bible contradicts itself I will find you a slightly more reasonable and tolerable person.

[comic boy]

Religious faith depends , amongst other things , on social, physchological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities,evidence or logic.

Yes, exactly like atheism and any other belief, including many that have nothing at all to do with religion.

No Dear
Your religion comforts you , my lack of religion does not relate to any physchological requirement , a better comparison would be your religion and my occasional Cocaine use. I really dont know why you keep insisting that your Christianity and my Atheism are similes , they are polar opposites, such delusion is simply a further manifestation of your discomfort with certain aspects of your faith.
It seems to me that you have problems reconciling certain logistical concepts so try to pretend that everybody else suffers from the same crisis , we dont , we each of us have different points of angst.

[Woodruff]

Religious faith depends , amongst other things , on social, physchological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities,evidence or logic.

Yes, exactly like atheism and any other belief, including many that have nothing at all to do with religion.

There are absolutely probabilities, evidence and logic that poses atheism as the most reasonable.

[PLAYER57832]

Religious faith depends , amongst other things , on social, physchological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities,evidence or logic.

Yes, exactly like atheism and any other belief, including many that have nothing at all to do with religion.

There are absolutely probabilities, evidence and logic that poses atheism as the most reasonable.

Really? You have yet to have shown how.

And, as I noted before... "probability" does not really matter in a case like this. If you had asked most biologists/doctors 3 decades ago if it was more probable that ulcers were caused by bacteria or some other cause, they would have said "some other cause", based on the evidence they saw. They were, however, wrong. As long as something is possible, it is perfectly logical to believe it might be true. Pretending that one choice is the only real logical choice is one of the most destructive things you can do in science and thinking, in general.

Note... I am not in any way saying that you, personally have to accept my choices, agree with me. I am merely saying that to claim you have logical superiority.. is not logic, it is bias.

[pmchugh]

As long as something is possible, it is perfectly logical to believe it might be true.

I believe that the earth is flat, this is possible. All pictures and videos that suggest otherwise are fake. The borders of the world are patrolled by thousands and thousands of guards on snowmobiles who kill anyone who sees them. There is no gravity, the world is flying upwards at a constant rate. This is possible, so it is perfectly logical to believe it might be true.

[comic boy]

Player , faith is not based on logic , we know that and so do you , not our problem if this discomforts you.
Probability is not a factor because things might change in the future.....LOL , when conditions change so does the degree of probability . We dont just suspend probability when it doesn't suit our agenda , you know this full well , your evasions are starting to border on the outright dishonest.
Conversation at Players house ;
Player " We need to look at a school for the youngest ""
Husband " But we did that last month , decided that probably Moose Jnr High was the best bet.''
Player " Yes but I think we should ignore probability because the school might change some time next century "

[PLAYER57832]

I'm confused. Is it possible for one of the disciples to have heard wrongly?

Nice try at a trap.
People are different. People hear the same words and get different meanings. I believe that religion, like many very complext things is best seen through the eyes of many.
You will NOT find disagreement among the disciples on the biggest points. You do find some disagreements, often disagreements they held at the time when Jesus was alive on some various issues. Jesus point, in them all was that they were each valid, within limits.

This is why I can accept that the Roman Catholic Church is a legitimate church that answers a need for many people even though I and not Roman Catholic and fundamentally disagree with many of its tenets. The points where we disagree were laid out as areas where even the disciples disagreed.

NO disciple denies that Christ died on the cross, preaches forgiveness of sins, etc.

The people who wrote (the least crazy) part of the Bible disagreed, yet they do not contradict each other?

I said they do not contradict each other on what is truly important, that in some cases there is more than one answer.
This is because people are different, not cookie cutters.
to pick a superficial example, do you like the same clothes that your siblings or friends do?
For a more pertinent example, some parents choose to send their kids to military school, others choose to send them to a Waldorf institution. Each can come out with an excellent education. And, each system can work with parents of varied religious views as well. The Bible is the Bible whether you are a "hippie"/beach bum, a wallstreet type A personality or a blue collar hard core logger/fisherman type.

You are drawing lines where there are none. Loving God and loving one's neighbors are the ultimate laws, explained early, in part by the Ten Commandments. The earlier commandments were only part of the rules. Its not that loving God is more important than the other, its that the other is part of loving God and one' s neighbors.

So if I don't love God and all of my neighbors then I cannot lead a morally just life?[/quote]
There is an old bumper sticker taht says "Christian means you are forgiven, not perfect". That sort of gets at what you are implying here. One can be a "good" and "morally just" person and not be "saved" .

However, the reverse is not entirely true. That is, one can superficially follow all the tenets of Christandom and Protestants would say this would probably not indicate a real conversion in the heart, therefore a person perhaps not saved (they may wind up reconciling later, etc,etc, ... and we cannot judge). A person who is truly saved should want to, TRY to do "good", to do "God's will". However, the other complication is that imperfect humans can easily misjudge what being "good" really is and what "God's will" might be.

Ergo.. it is forgiveness, not works that matter in the end, though works exemplify faith and forgiveness.

But, that second part gets into the distinction between right and wrong versus forgiveness. Any sin can be forgiven, even great sins. My church (distinct from the Roman Catholic view) holds that no action we can do on Earth is worthy of gaining forgiveness, it comes purely through grace. It is not that saving millions is unimportant, but the real point is that someone who is truly saved simply would not kill millions intentionally. And.. we like to think that a person with a heart good enough to save millions would find a path to Christ and God, (though that is, perhaps, not certain).

Well done, a perfect illustration of the no true Scotsman argument.

No. Why would seeing or not seeing God be important?

It is not important in the slightest. Except that there is a clear contradiction in the bible about it, if you want me to recite all the verses I will.[/quote]
There is no contradiction, but if you want me to explain, then yes, you will have to describe what you think is a contradiction.

You keep trying to say that they agree on the main issues but that is completely irrelevant. The bible contradicts itself and that is pretty much fact. If you are willing to admit that on some (perhaps minor) issues the Bible contradicts itself I will find you a slightly more reasonable and tolerable person.

Uh, no. This is not what I said and no the Bible does not really contradict itself unless you think that saying in a world as wide as ours, people might at times need different answers in how to live, etc., is a "contradiction". There are not contradictions in fact or law.

[comic boy]

Sunday 19th Feb 22.40
Another day goes by and still no evidence of 'God ' .

[pmchugh]

Ugh I am getting tired of reading your posts player, learn to hit preview and fix your quotations.

This is because people are different, not cookie cutters.
to pick a superficial example, do you like the same clothes that your siblings or friends do?
For a more pertinent example, some parents choose to send their kids to military school, others choose to send them to a Waldorf institution. Each can come out with an excellent education. And, each system can work with parents of varied religious views as well. The Bible is the Bible whether you are a "hippie"/beach bum, a wallstreet type A personality or a blue collar hard core logger/fisherman type.

This is all babble, please stop doing that.

So if I don't love God and all of my neighbors then I cannot lead a morally just life?

There is an old bumper sticker taht says "Christian means you are forgiven, not perfect". That sort of gets at what you are implying here. One can be a "good" and "morally just" person and not be "saved" .

However, the reverse is not entirely true. That is, one can superficially follow all the tenets of Christandom and Protestants would say this would probably not indicate a real conversion in the heart, therefore a person perhaps not saved (they may wind up reconciling later, etc,etc, ... and we cannot judge). A person who is truly saved should want to, TRY to do "good", to do "God's will". However, the other complication is that imperfect humans can easily misjudge what being "good" really is and what "God's will" might be.

Here is one of my main gripes with Christianity, its morality is nonsense. If you truly repent and ask for forgiveness and believe in God, you go unpunished no matter what your crimes. If you lead a "good" and "morally just" life but do not believe in God you are punished eternally. How is that fair? In fact how is torturing anyone for eternity fair or moral? And we are to believe God is perfectly fair and moral? Gufwah?

Uh, no. This is not what I said and no the Bible does not really contradict itself unless you think that saying in a world as wide as ours, people might at times need different answers in how to live, etc., is a "contradiction". There are not contradictions in fact or law.

OK, so you are slightly insane. I guess I should go on with some bible verses then.

Have seen:

I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle

For mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

Have not seen:

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Whom no man hath seen nor can see.

There are more examples than these few on this same topic, I will post them if needed.

[Woodruff]

Religious faith depends , amongst other things , on social, physchological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities,evidence or logic.

Yes, exactly like atheism and any other belief, including many that have nothing at all to do with religion.

There are absolutely probabilities, evidence and logic that poses atheism as the most reasonable.

Really? You have yet to have shown how.

It's so patently obvious that I wouldn't have thought it would be necessary. Seriously...people who believe do so because of FAITH. They don't do so because of logic, evidence or probabilities because THOSE THINGS REASONABLY SHOW THAT GOD PROBABLY DOES NOT EXIST.

And, as I noted before... "probability" does not really matter in a case like this.

The hell it doesn't. Why wouldn't it?

If you had asked most biologists/doctors 3 decades ago if it was more probable that ulcers were caused by bacteria or some other cause, they would have said "some other cause", based on the evidence they saw. They were, however, wrong.

That's why they're called PROBABILITIES instead of FACTS. Jesus, seriously...are you even paying attention to what you type?

As long as something is possible, it is perfectly logical to believe it might be true. Pretending that one choice is the only real logical choice is one of the most destructive things you can do in science and thinking, in general.

We're not talking about "the only real logical choice"...we're specifically talking about your statement above that atheism has as little to do with probabilities, evidence and logic as religion does. We're specifically talking about my statement that the probabilities, evidence and logic pose atheism as the most reasonable possibility.

Note... I am not in any way saying that you, personally have to accept my choices, agree with me. I am merely saying that to claim you have logical superiority.. is not logic, it is bias.

I gotta be honest with you PLAYER, that sounds like the sort of thing that would come out of the mouth of an Intelligent Design proponent. Terribly poor view of logic on your part.

[Aradhus]

Player, what proof do you have that your interactions were with God, and not with, Satan, or any demon, or any number of beings that might exist?

for this, it does not matter, since any of the above would qualify for the definition of "God" to a believer.

Or you know, proof that your interactions aren't just delusions.

Never said I could prove it, did I? But the point is, you cannot prove they ARE just delusions (and note that IS a "positive" claim, not asking to prove a negative!)

Actually the point is you said you have evidence of gods existence via interactions, but you can't even prove that these interactions are evidence never mind that they're true. Which is pretty close to the definition of delusional.

Friday 17th Feb 20.30 ......Still no God

Prove that.

Saturday 18th Feb 6:35 pm ... Still no proof of god.

Proof of delusional behaviour though where people have entire belief systems based on what God wants of them, even though they've never met this god, have had no interactions with him and have no evidence of his existence.

WE, (several believers here of varied faiths) have all explained that there is a big difference between "no interactions" and "interactions we can show to others, or WANT to show to others" (some things ARE too personal to trot out on the internet)

Oh yeah, I meant to mention earlier, you remind me of my brother here. He thinks everyone is as dense as he is too. You won't "trot out" your interactions because you know they'll get pilloried. "Too personal" in this instance actually means too damaging. We both know it.

[PLAYER57832]

As long as something is possible, it is perfectly logical to believe it might be true.

I believe that the earth is flat, this is possible. All pictures and videos that suggest otherwise are fake. The borders of the world are patrolled by thousands and thousands of guards on snowmobiles who kill anyone who sees them. There is no gravity, the world is flying upwards at a constant rate. This is possible, so it is perfectly logical to believe it might be true.

At some point, the evidence does outrule possibilities.

But go ahead and try to claim that believing in God is the same as the most ridiculous ideas you can come up with. Just don't pretend you are being erudite.

[PLAYER57832]

Religious faith depends , amongst other things , on social, physchological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities,evidence or logic.

Yes, exactly like atheism and any other belief, including many that have nothing at all to do with religion.

There are absolutely probabilities, evidence and logic that poses atheism as the most reasonable.

Really? You have yet to have shown how.

It's so patently obvious that I wouldn't have thought it would be necessary. Seriously...people who believe do so because of FAITH. They don't do so because of logic, evidence or probabilities because THOSE THINGS REASONABLY SHOW THAT GOD PROBABLY DOES NOT EXIST.

No. Faith takes off where logic leaves.

You cannot logically deduce that which has truly so little evidence. What you call "evidence" is really just saying "we have come up with alternatives that differ from what earlier people thought". Except.. you ignore that modern religious individuals accept those same facts, accept the same changes put forward by evidence.

It is very much like claiming that science is wrong becuase it keeps changing and revising ideas instead of staying back at the level of alchemy. PEOPLE have gained more knowledge, but there is still a vast area where there just is no conclusive evidence. There just is not. There is faith and evidence that can be seen in many ways, fit into many frameworks.

And, as I noted before... "probability" does not really matter in a case like this.

The hell it doesn't. Why wouldn't it?

First I dispute the "more evidence" claim, but that is something about which we will have to just agree to disagree. I believe in God because, to me that believe IS much more logical, has more evidence. You do not.

In scientific terms, we are just two people who have different theories which we each firmly believe. In a science conference, we would likely wind up "butting heads" or debating heavily. But, for the rest of the community.. the question is still truly open. Some might take one side or the other. EACH will say "their" side is correct, but overall the majority truly understand that the actual answer is yet to be found. THAT is science, not saying "hey, we think this is true, so we are just going to ignore all these other possibilities". Or rather, I should say that science has too often done just that.. with the Velliger larvae, with ulcers, with many things (including solutions to AIDS, etc). Then someone proves the "accepted ideas" wrong and they win the nobel laureat.. more or less.

If you had asked most biologists/doctors 3 decades ago if it was more probable that ulcers were caused by bacteria or some other cause, they would have said "some other cause", based on the evidence they saw. They were, however, wrong.

That's why they're called PROBABILITIES instead of FACTS. Jesus, seriously...are you even paying attention to what you type?

Yes, but you seem to be confusing the two. There are no FACTS proving that there is no God.

As long as something is possible, it is perfectly logical to believe it might be true. Pretending that one choice is the only real logical choice is one of the most destructive things you can do in science and thinking, in general.

We're not talking about "the only real logical choice"...we're specifically talking about your statement above that atheism has as little to do with probabilities, evidence and logic as religion does. We're specifically talking about my statement that the probabilities, evidence and logic pose atheism as the most reasonable possibility.

No, you are making a false assumption and a very, very big one in science, at that. This is not an esoteric or idle question. It really does make the difference between "technicians" very proficient people at collecting and processing data, basically following trends.. and those who actually go out and think new things, who truly move science forward (or, for that matter, inventions ).

Partly, it is a matter of semantics. Yes, of course your individual choice will be based on what you feel is more logical. BUT, does that give you the right to say that other people are ignoring logic, not thinking clearly, etc, etc? NO. Those of us who believe in God have, in various ways, said that we also see evidence, proof. It does not matter whether you see that evidence or not for the greater question, only for your personnal answer.

In any other situation, you would certainly recognize that there is a difference between seeing something and making and individual choice and insisting that it is the "only" valid choice". Somehow, because this is religion, a large group have decided that this principle can be ignored.

Note... I am not in any way saying that you, personally have to accept my choices, agree with me. I am merely saying that to claim you have logical superiority.. is not logic, it is bias.

I gotta be honest with you PLAYER, that sounds like the sort of thing that would come out of the mouth of an Intelligent Design proponent. Terribly poor view of logic on your part.

Really? I would say that you are looking at things from a very narrow glass.
Intelligent Design requires ignoring real and actual proof. Belief in God, in Christianity does not.

[pmchugh]

As long as something is possible, it is perfectly logical to believe it might be true.

I believe that the earth is flat, this is possible. All pictures and videos that suggest otherwise are fake. The borders of the world are patrolled by thousands and thousands of guards on snowmobiles who kill anyone who sees them. There is no gravity, the world is flying upwards at a constant rate. This is possible, so it is perfectly logical to believe it might be true.

At some point, the evidence does outrule possibilities.

But go ahead and try to claim that believing in God is the same as the most ridiculous ideas you can come up with. Just don't pretend you are being erudite.

At what point does evidence rule out Christianity?

When it is proved their was no global flood?
When it became apparent that the exodus did not occur?
When evolution rubbished the story of Genesis?
When its morality is decried even by Christian churches?
When we visit the clouds to find no God? (why did he stop the building of the tower of babel but allow us to fly above the clouds?)

Ah but of course as soon as something is dis-proven it becomes allegory, right gotcha.