Do you believe in god?

[Sri Lumpa]

Grey Acumen said:

Sri Lumpa said:

Grey Acumen said:

1.) Like I said, limited perception on your part. Light is exhibits properties of both a particle and a wave, I don't recall any recent science explaining how this is possible. Same thing, God can create something that is not himself that then is himself.

1) By using the "limited perception" argument you can justify anything though. You can't say that anything is impossible, just that our limited perception doesn't allow us to view it as possible. Such reasoning can thus easily be used to justify anything you want as good or bad and makes one the ultimate moral relativist.

For example you cannot say that what the 9/11 terrorists was immoral in the absolute because it might only be your limited perception of god telling you it is. If their perception that god wanted them to crash these planes in these buildings is right then your worldview would imply that their actions were moral.

2) i.e. Your refusal to accept any limitation on god due to our limited perception means that it is possible for him to make (or have made) the world such that the actions of the 9/11 terrorists are moral actions to be praise by righteous people and if you were to have incontrovertible proof of both allah's existence (as th3ese terrorists saw it) as the one and only god and his desire for them to perform these act your conclusion would be that these actions were moral actions. 3) My conclusion would be that the god they believe in is immoral (which doesn't mean that the god that every muslim in is immoral, just that it is not the same god, just a superficially similar one).

2.) Scientifically, that's the flaw in your arguments. Your arguments are based on the idea that the more we learn about Science, the more we learn that God can't have done.

4) Actually that is not what my argument is. My argument is that the more we learn about science the more we learn about how the world is. Now, when a specific religion makes specific claims about how the world is (like "the earth is flat") and those claims are disproven then there is no reason to assume the remaining statements are true.

In other word, if the supposedly divinely inspired bible is routinely wrong about verifiable statements (like Earth's flatness, the young age of it, the value of pi...) then there is no reason to believe it likely for it to be right about nonverifiable statements (like god's existence, heaven and hell's existence and how to get there...).

None of this implies that a god cannot exist, just not the one described in such heavily disproven texts.

Now one can posit that a particular god described in a particular text does indeed exist but that that text is an imperfect description of it but then we have two problems:

5) _How do I know which part are right and which part are wrong?

_How much of the sacred text can you excise while still being able to honestly claim to believe in said deity and not in a deity barely related to it?

6) i.e. the deity of the modern christian is much different than the deity of the middle ages christian is much different from the deity of the antic hebrew. Are they all the same deity or a continuum of various deities each morphing in the next merely sharing a common cultural ancestry?

In the typical description, God CREATED the universe and is responsible for it's motion and how it operates, hence the most science can claim is "Oh, I see how we can do the same thing, I bet when God did this, the universe exhibited similar properties"

Not necessarily do the same thing as there are plenty of things science explains but cannot reproduce (cosmological events for example). However I would challenge your use of "I bet when God did this" as like Laplace said when asked by Napoleon why there was no mention of god in his "Celestial Mechanics":

"Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis".

Why not wait until such a need arise for such an hypothesis before using it?

The issue at hand here is that if I'm right about God existing, then circular logics are going to be necessary because of the very properties of his existence that defy the limitations of the physical universe because he is the one who created them. He is literally a being that, by his most basic description, has to have existed outside the bounds of the physical universe. HE CREATED IT, hence he "existed" before it. We are bound by the physical laws because we can only exist in and perceive the physical universe that we are in, however, as it's creator, God must have existed at a point in which those laws did NOT exist.

While god, if he exists and created the universe would indeed be outside of it and not subject to its laws does not mean that he is not subjects to any laws.

We can only exist because there are laws governing the matter we are made of so that our atoms stay together long enough for us to exist instead of staying together for a fraction of a second then flying apart the next due to changing laws.

7) Thought cannot be in a vacuum. Why cannot be thought be in a vacuum you ask? Because the presence of thought in said vacuum negates it being a vacuum in the same way that the presence of matter would negate it being a vacuum.

As thought cannot be in a vacuum it must occur in a medium. we may choose to call that medium spirit or spiritual matter (as it would be to spirits what matter is to us) but some kind of medium must exist.

Said medium must be governed by (meta)stable laws just like ours (matter) is. If there were no such laws then thought would not be possible in that medium anymore than our being would be possible if the laws of our medium were not (meta)stable.

So where did that medium and its laws come from? I cannot have been created by god in the same way that our universe cannot have been created by man, because we are part of it and he is part of that medium and needs it prior to existing. Was it created by a metagod? Then we only push the problem one level further.

And if that medium spontaneously happened or always was with its laws and its denizen(s) (god(s)) then why cannot the same be said of our medium?

8) Now notice that it is not proof of the nonexistence of god as all three possibilities; spontaneous creation of our medium, spontaneous creation of god's medium or spontaneous creation of a metaspiritual (or transpiritual) medium are equally likely; but it does tell us that even god has to be subject to laws that he didn't create so you cannot escape circular logic either way:

_ If god exist then he isn't subject to our universe's law and could have created it... but he would have to be subject to the laws of the spiritual universe he exists in... laws whose origin thus cannot be god and would require an explanation like ours do.

_If god doesn't exist then our laws still require an explanation.

9) Adding god does not resolve the problem of the origin of the laws, it makes it more complicated by moving it from finding the origin of the laws in an universe we can observe and experience with to an universe that we have no way to observe and experience with.

However, for your points you have offered various "logical" tests as "proof" of God's inexistance. However, EVERY SINGLE ONE of these arguments are all based on the initial idea that God doesn't exist.

10) No, every one of those is base on the initial idea that god, even if he exists, is not omnipotent, just extremely powerful, and that he is subject to the laws of logic. Can he create a universe where 2+2=5? Where torture and hate are always moral? Your answer seems to be yes, you ubelieve he can, my answer is no I believe there are intrinsic truths that are above god.

The only issue is that scientifically, that is unsound.

Even though this is not what I surmise I must as how would it not be scientifically sound to base one's initial idea on god not existing? Shouldn't it be the base hypothesis and then if results disagree with it in a way that a divine entity is absolutely necessary we add it (but only then)?

11) Wouldn't your way be the end of science? We postulate that god exists so we can answer any scientific question by "god did it". This is not science, it is the death of it.

So by that fact, if you want to believe in God, you must rest those beliefs on proofs that conflict with the very laws that supposedly dictate your own beliefs. My beliefs of God is "why" and Science is "how we can do what god already knows how to do" has none of those conflicts. circular logic? perhaps, but just like rock paper scissors and yinyang and nature itself, a flow is often a sign of harmony and balance

12) I do not want to believe in god but neither do I want to disbelieve in it. If believing in god necessitate to conflict with the very laws of the world as we understand it then it is more logical not to belive in himand thus there is no conflict.

If scientific discoveries were such that belief in god was compatible, or made necessary, by the observable laws of nature then one could, or should, believe in its existence and there would still be no conflict.

There is only conflict when the world described by its own being is different from the world described by various religions and the conflict only exist for those insisting in keeping their religious belief in spite of said contradiction.

3.) Actually, my beliefs are founded on the fact that people are not perfect, nor is language, and politics only makes things worse. I don't make the mistake of going "well, it said it in the bible, I must kill and stomp out anything that seems to conflict with the bible" because the first thing that you should do is check what the bible says (a book written by man)

So I take it that you do not believe the bible to be inerrant unlike what it claims?

13) Matthew 5:48 says: "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

while 2 Timothy 3:16 says: "Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness"

So either the bible is inerrant, every scripture is divinely by a perfect god and must therefore be perfect or the bible is fallible and its content subject to criticism and analysis like any other book on moral philosophy.

Biblical infallibility seems incompatible with these passage as biblical infability, while admitting that the bible may be wrong in matters of history and science it is perfect when it comes to faith and practice, implies that these passage are perfect (as they are a matter of faith) and thus biblical infallibility implies biblical inerrancy.

14) Now my question to you is, if you admit to the bible's faulty nature, how do you go about determining which passages are right and which are wrong? Are you not merely picking and mixing what you like and fashioning your own brand of "christianity" according to what you want to believe? Can you still do that and call yourself a christian instead of, for example, a deist with a culturally christian background?

against the 10 commandments (direct words of god) though still, currently written in language invented by man wich is not perfect, hence needing to be carefully reinterpreted every so often in order to avoid loss of original intent.

15) But how do you know which reinterpretations are the original intent? Aren't you just making it up as you go along?

Most religions forget this, but I don't, which is why my beliefs aren't bound to the same stupid logical falacies that most religious documents have their doctrines peppered with.

16) But how can you claim to believe in them then, when your belief does not come from the bible (as you reinterpret it to suit your preconceived perception of what you think it means) but the other way around, your (abridged) bible is derived from your beliefs and used to buttress them.

17) If you cannot understand god due to your limited perspective then how can you be sure that the way you interpret the bible is the correct one. After all, a passage that appears despicable to you and that you would thus deem human in origin could be divine in origin with you not undertsanding it properly.

18) Furthermore, is there any part of the bible that you believe to be from god that you do not agree with? If not, isn't it convenient that your moral beliefs derived from your imperfection would exactly coincide with god's morality? Wouldn't it be more porbably, in such a case, that you fashioned the god you believe in after you?

4.) Again, limited perception on your part. I never said God wasn't already perfect, I said perfection is constantly increasing. God is not constantly striving to reach perfection, he IS that ever increasing point of perfection. Hence no matter how "perfect" we are able to make something (not in theory, in reality), there is always a way to improve, or become more accurate. So there isn't any conflict with what any bible has said and what I have said.

I see, just like at the point of the big bang the entropy was at its maximum, yet has been increasing ever since (because the maximum entropy increased with the universe's expansion).

19) I am not sure that it could be called perfection then, as perfection would become ever more perfect. It would just be the maximum amount of perfection reachable at that point but it would make me think that real perfection (as understood on an everyday basis) cannot exist in such a theory, just increasing near-perfection with a limit just under perfection, so god would be near-perfect bt not perfect (as perfection would then not be reachable even for god).

Regardless of whether one would think perfection to be reachable for god in such a theory I am curious on what made you think that it is the nature of perfection to be ever changing as traditionally perfection is seen as a fixed point after which no improvement is possible.

20) PS: I'm probably gonna end this soon as it starts getting to too epic proportions, though it is enjoyable to discuss it.

edit: epic 300th post... this is madness, no this.is.Sri Lumpa.

you're still missing the main points of what I'm saying, or ignoring them, it's hard to tell. Sorry if some of the thought process in my points below are broken up here. It takes a while to read through what you're saying, find the point that you're making, and then figure out how to explain it.

1.) see, the problem you're having in this issue is that you're trying to make me play by your rules, just like you're expecting god to play by your rules. It's like a WoW player expecting the games designers to have a level 70 experience cap in real life. I mean, seriously, just for a second, start your hypothesis off with "there is a god" god created the rules, then scientists are merely learning the rules as they go along, stop assuming god has to play by those rules too, he invented the game, but he's not bound by those rules unless he's playing, and really, what programmer worth their salt doesn't put in a few back doors to exploit when they need to get back into the programming to deal with any runtime errors?

2) Of course it's POSSIBLE for god to do it. But I hardly see how having the ability to do it requires that he do so. It's like saying: "if God existed, God would have the power to end his existence, thus he cannot exist" I mean, how the hell does that even make any sense? Just having the ability doesn't automatically activate it.

3) See, again, this idea of yours is ultimately based on the idea that god doesn't exist, because you're giving just as much credence to any yutzpah that uses the word god as you do to the people that actually back up their beliefs in God with actions that you recognize as good. Meanwhile, I recognize that these are PEOPLE who are spouting out "God this and god that" so when I get confronted by this, I can point out that they are wrong. They don't have to believe me for me to be right. For some reason what you're saying here is trying to refute my Is less than or Is greater than test with an Is true or Is false test.

4) I believe in psychology this is reffered to as emotional displacement, though I don't know if there's really emotion, so lets just call it causal inaccuracy. Please read this one closely, cause it's actually very important.
In most religious texts, the earth is termed as a circle, disc, dome, or sphere. Now think about this for a second. If it was the religious texts themselves that were written with the idea that the earth was actually flat, then why would they say circle? Why not square or triangle or star? To me, this puts out some pretty neon signs pointing to the fact that the religious texts essentially boil down to saying "round" but people misinterpreted it as "round and flat" Where you look at these points to say that religion is consistently proven wrong, I am looking at this and seeing science consistently making bad assumptions about where flaws in religion stem from.
It is not from the religion itself, but the uneducated people who had to interpret religious texts and make it match up with their own understanding; "Every time I try to put my doll on the bottom of this ball that I'm holding in the air, it falls off, so when the book says the earth is circular, they must mean like a plate"

To further this point, religious texts, at least Christian based, refer to the earth as being the center of the heavens. Many scientists use this to try to show science as being better than religion when it was shown that the earth circled the sun, and not the sun circling the earth. However, 100s of years later, we start to try to explain universal expansion and understand where the center of the universe is. Guess what? The prevailing theories point to the idea that the universe is essentially mapped to the outside of an expanding balloon and so no matter what point you pick on it, every other point in the universe is expanding away from that point. Hence, the earth IS the center of the universe from the perspective of the observer at that point. You know, US.

5) I find that the most effective methods are finding out what text conflicts with the fundamental function of lower level society. Hence the 10 commandments cover it pretty well. You start with those as the base, much like how you have your postulates in math 1 is followed by 2 is followed by 3, etc, and then 1 + 1 = 2, etc. From there, you check if anything specifically conflicts with the 10 commandments, and you also check to see if people are assuming more initiative needs to be taken than what the text actually calls for.
One of the big things I hear about is homosexuality, which is considered wrong by many religious texts. This makes sense, as if everyone in the world was homosexual, you wouldn't have continued survival of the species, if every one in the world was straight, you would have society continue just as it is now. However, I don't see where it says that homosexuals need to be killed or treated like animals, etc. Also, from what I can see, you can have homosexual inclinations and still qualify for heaven, provided you don't actually engage in any homosexual activity.

6) Actually, this one I can explain pretty easily with a cute little story that I used to hate until it suddenly clicked on me. There's a story of 5 blind men who come across an elephant, one touches its tusks, one touches its tail, one touches its foot, one its ear and one its trunk. They each exclaim "ah, so this is what an elephant is" and when their descriptions don't match up, they quarrel over it. the version I heard, they painted the elephant for some reason, but i think in other version they might have killed it or had it trample them.
When you actually stop and think about it, it remains consistent that god is on a different plane of existence than we exist on. much like trying to observe a 3d object as a 2d image, we can't see all of it at once. So one person looking from one side may say "ah, this square is yellow" and another would say "ah, this square is blue" but really, they're looking at a rubix cube and each can only see one side. So really, most religions are all looking at the same god, but seeing and worshiping what aspects they are capable of perceiving. However, this doesn't mean all religions have equal validity. After all, do you really want to be worshiping an elephant's ass? (well, I suppose if you needed the fertilizer... but still... wheagh)

7) How can you even claim to know how thought works, and thus how can you claim to say that thought cannot exist apart from matter? We may be able to document the electrical impulses that are the physical signs of thought taking place, but there is no possible way you can be certain that it is the electrical impulses that manifest thought, and not thought that is there first and which manifests as electrical impulses in the brain.

8) auugh, again, you're going back into this thing of "I cannot conceive of it, thus it cannot exist"

9) why does there have to be a problem just because god is the origin?

10) Okay, I get what the problem you're having is; you just seriously cannot conceive of something being perfect. You figure, if god is perfect, then he is either bound by truths and thus not perfect because he is bound, or you figure that he is above the truths, and thus capable of doing things that are imperfect. However, since you cannot ACTUALLY conceive of god being perfect, you constantly push imperfections on your image of god, and so when he is above truth, he will automatically start to warp truth to something that isn't truth. Have you ever considered that truth is Truth because god keeps it that way?

11) Why do you just stop at "god did it"as a final answer? Well, HOW did god do it? We, as a species are attempting to learn and understand god. Science, just as with religion, is designed to help us better understand the ways in which our universe functions and what roles we play in it. I've already stated that they address two entirely focuses, in that religion answer why, whereas science answers how. The problems stem from when one attempts to exert authority over the realm of the other. I have never once EVER held the belief that we should just read the bible and get all of our answers from it and it alone. I'm just pointing out the fact that the existence of god is not something that science can answer, and showing the flaws in scientific theories that supposedly support his inexistence.

12) but as I've stated in point 5 and perhaps a little in point 6, just because science SEEMS to conflict with god's existence does not mean it does. This fact needs to be recognized. Science has been far too quick to attempt to kill god off, whether for publicity or in the belief that, without religion, ignorance would disappear, or simply in revenge for how religion had historically made it difficult for scientific breakthroughs to be made and accepted. Every attempt to remove god has only resulted in flawed arguments that undermine the credibility and certainty that is supposed to be science's ideal. Scientists shouldn't even be concerning themselves with whether god does or doesn't exist, and there shouldn't even BE "proofs" whether theory or not about his existence.

13) I don't really know the bible line for line, so figuring out the context from just a single line is sketchy at best. that would be like me saying that 1.0 = 0.9, and then trying to get you to explain that conflict in math. Of course, I only showed you the first 9 characters of that equation and didn't mention that that 0.9 actually continues to say 0.999999 repeating. Even with that though, I don't see any of those lines saying "God 5:12" along with that, it may have been perfect at the time, but now context and language barriers are putting flaws in our understanding of it.

14) um, see point 5 up above here. I use science and logic to flag spots that are showing possible conflicts, check the wording and see just what exactly it does say and what it doesn't say, and then check to see if I find any flaws with the 10 commandments and the existence of Christ. If there are any conflicts with those, or with proven scientific fact, i file that away to be rechecked at a later point, as well as flagging the proven scientific fact for follow up to see if there is more to it than perceived. My fiance had a quote in her signatures that went something like; "the truest sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two conflicting thoughts in in equal standing without going insane"
Also, as I've stated, I DONT believe that Christianity captures every single point of god perfectly. I do believe in both God and Jesus, but I don't believe in those that claim to follow those doctrines but then not actually follow those doctrines. however, in circumstances as those I do not bring teh initial doctrines into question, but the people claiming to represent them. it's really pretty straightforward.

15) Ultimately, it falls back to the fact that we exist, and we also die. There is a reason and purpose to both, I look for consistencies between both science and religion. As I have said before, they are both two different ways of trying to understand our universe better, they simply answer different questions. Within their own fields they are wonderful but when each one tries to answer questions in the other's territory, it just gets stupid. Have you ever been smacked in the face with a bat? I haven't, but I can only imagine that to be similar to the type of sensation i get when I run into the conflicts and logical inconsistencies i see with arguments like those.

16) You're still falling on the idea that I'm some sort of hardcore christian. It did provide the basic foundation, but I questioned things and didn't settle for because. As a result, I have generally considered myself more of a semi-christian, semi-deist. I have stated myself that I don't believe the bible to be perfect, perhaps by its own virtues, it is perfect, but language and human understanding of it are not.

17) Well, the simple answer is by constantly asking yourself what your limitations are, and then slowly and carefully removing the limitations of your perspective. That is pretty much what I have utterly devoted myself specifically towards for the past 10+ years (current age: 24) It may sound a little hippy, but when science and religion are harmonized in your mind, you are capable of answering the two big questions to the universe(what can I do?/how do I or will I do it? and should I do it?/why should I or am I doing it?), whereas those who only use just science or just religion to explain things invariably lose one of those two questions. It's like trying to see with one eye. You can do it, but your perspective is off, if you close one eye or the other, it'll be off in different ways, but it's only if you open both eyes that you can see properly.

18) There aren't any that I can think of right now, but there have been. It's been a while since I've had most of those breakthroughs though, so it's honestly hard to recall what all those conflicts were.

19) argh, again you just refuse to think that something actually IS perfect. I go through and state that he is that point of perfection that is ever increasing, but you go through and say "ah, I get it, so perfection is constantly increasing, thus, god is always not quite perfect and is constantly just a little bit behind that point of perfection." NO. He IS that point of perfection. Him being able to reach it doesn't come into issue, he IS it.

20) Good freaking grief, i hope so, this took me all evening to get through, and i may be cut off from net access over the next week, at least when it comes down to long intervals like what i needed to deal with this post. If you are going to refute any points, do you think you could skip quoting it and just use the numbers?

1) " start your hypothesis off with "there is a god""

Yes, and PS3 fanboys know that if I start of with the hypothesis that the Wii is a fad and PS3's sale will skyrocket as soon as the price drops then it is obvious the PS3 will win this generation.

But while both are internally consistent theories doesn't mean they are real, and while I would accept both if there were evidence for them I don't until I see said evidence.

2) I don't think you understand my point. My point is moral things are either intrinsically moral or they are moral relative to god's will. I think the former, you say you think that latter (though you act the former), so do terrorists. The difference between you and them is what you believe god's will to be. For me a person following god's will in a moral way is no more nor less moral than a person following god's will in an immoral  way, they are just acting morally for the wrong reason. God's possible ability to change what is moral doesn't mean he does so, it means that there is no moral absolute as it is relative to one entitie's point of view. This, for me is the ultimate form of moral relativism.

3) No, conceiving the possibility of an immoral god is not denying the possibility of a god. I give as much credence to those "yutzpah" because they have provided as much evidence. What if the person telling you "god this and god that" that you believe to be wrong, was god itself? Or, in other word, how can you be sure that you are right and not them? Your inability to conceive of a chaotic/evil god does not negate its possible existence any more than what you think is my inability to conceive a perfect one would negate its possible existence.

4) Well, frankly your "the circle really is a sphere" thing sounds like diong all you can to make it sound like they didn't get it wrong. BTW, the bible also refers to the four corners of the earth, but an omnipotent god can also square the circle so I doubt they got that wrong either. Oh, I almost forgot that the devil brought Jesus to a point where he could see all the kingdoms of the earth which is only possible on a flat earth (or at least one where all the kingdoms are on the same hemisphere which just might be possible if you say Japan was an empire not a kingdom and forget about eastern China).

As an aside, in your example of the expanding balloon, the earth is not at the center, it is at the periphery, and that it is at the center from our perspective is just as true today as it was 2000-2500 years ago when the bible was written as I can easily ascertain by going outside and seeing that from my perspective the Sun does orbit around the earth.

The point is, even if there is a god and even if that god tried to describe himself to humans who then imperfectly wrote that stuff down, there is a point where the description is so different from the real thing that it is not the same thing at all anymore (chinese whispers and all if you wish). Thus, even if the bible started as a such a description it is totally useless at it due to the errors. I am just using the rate of errors in the things we can check as a gauge of the rate of errors in the things we can't though I feel I am being generous as if we cannot comprehend god but can comprehend the world to a better extent then the rate of error of the former description is likely to be higher.

5) That is a good beginning though quite a few of the commandments either have nothing to do with morality or are too general to be useful. Also note that the tenth commandment treats the wife as the husband's property, like his slaves, oxes, donkeys... so I am not sure even that is the word of a perfect god (unless you believe slavery is morally right and that women are their husband's slaves).

However, do you need to use them to do so? Can you not see what conflicts with the functioning of society without referencing to it? If not then I guess it is impossible for man to create laws without reference to them. I wonder how the Chinese and Egyptians did it then. Sure, there laws were not perfect but neither are the ten commandments.

As for the homosexuality part I suppose you refer to the 10 commandments, in which case we agree, as I doubt that you haven't heard of the passage in leviticus condemning it.

6) The elephant story would explain why god is so different between the old testament and the new and between the new and the koran, but it wouldn't explain why starting from the same body of texts (i.e. the same amount of elephant) you would get so many different conclusions when only the understanding of things outside the elephant (science explaining the universe better) changes. Unless you want to add scientific discovery as a mean to know god like a sculptor taking away bits and pieces of a stone to reveal the statue inside. The problem is, so far, there is no indication that there is any statue there but for what we put ourselves.

7) while thought might be able to exist without matter (the stuff we can touch) it still need some kind of medium to exist. If there is nothing there is nothing, for something (thought, god, us) to be it needs to be in something, whether matter or another medium. Unless you want to argue that god is made of nothing; which I would agree is the most probable option just that you think he is made out of nothing but is and I think he is made out of nothing and thus isn't.

8) Actually it isn't such a case, it is a case of "regardless of whether he exists or not, it doesn't explain things, it jsut moves the problem further away where we cannot see it, like pushing the dust under the carpet".

Plus you commit the same "sin" as you cannot seem to be able to conceive of a god that is not perfect whereas I can.

9) The problem is not that god is the origin. The problem of the origin of the laws exists because we exist to experience them and want to understand their origin. I am just saying that the god solution to their origin is no solution, it is just a prestidigitator's trick to make them disappear like a dove: "look it's magic" becomes "look, it's a miracle".

10) Not quite, I believe it possible to be perfect within given boundaries whereas you seem to think that perfection implies no boundaries.

As for "Have you ever considered that truth is Truth because god keeps it that way?": it indicates that you believe truth to be relative (to god). I belive truth to be absolute (whether we ca recognise it or not) though not necessarily determinable.

11) Well, I don;t just stop there and if you don't either kudos to you but it is the general attitude that seems to be the preponderant result of such thought process. Most religiously conservative people support science as long as it doesn't understand the world in a different way than their belief and cry foul when it does, John Locke put it better than me:

"I find every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly: and where it fails them, they cry out, It is a matter of faith, and above reason."

And while science cannot disprove (or prove) god's existence it can disprove given depictions of it and has and will continue to do so. An organised religion has then the choice of cutting itself from the world and die out or at least become niche or change its god in accordance. Hence when god's prophet says the earth is flat we believe him but when science proves it is a sphere we burn the messenger (when in power) or say "well, they said circle so they could have meant sphere".

12) We agree on this point and to me science doesn't attempt to prove or disprove god. Science disproving some gods is not the same as science disproving god (and as I said before it cannot disprove the deistic god) and science disproving some of the disprovable gods is not the aim of science, merely a side effect.

Also the theories about god's existence are not in science, they are in the religious books that tell us how god is and how the world is. When science (and everyday experience) disproves these theories it is not because science's theories are successful, it is because that particular religion's theories fail.

13) Neither do I, but either the bible stands as the perfectly inspired word of perfect deity and can thus withstand any criticism that can be brought upon it by reason or science or it fails to be perfect and we need to criticise it. The difference between you and me in that respect is that you bear your criticism as if it was the mangled word of god whereas I bear mine as if it didn't matter whether it is the word of god or not and neither does it matter if said word of said god is mangled or not.

14) So while many christians see the whole of the bible as inerrant you only see the ten commandments as being so. You are just doing the same thing to a smaller body of text. I do not see why the ten commandments should be exampt of such scrutiny for the same reasion I laid out for the bible in point 13 (and it applies to all texts whether religious, scientific or otherwise).

"I don't believe in those that claim to follow those doctrines but then not actually follow those doctrines" So you don't believe in yourself?

15) While I agree that there is a reason we exist (because our parents had sex) I am not sure that there is a purpose to our life other than the purpose we give ourselves.

And if our purpose comes to us from god then where does god's purpose come from? And if god's purpose comes from itself then why cannot our purpose come from ourselves (or each others)? My purposes do, don't you have any purposes that are not related to god in any way? (any direct way as you are gonna say everything is related to god otherwise)

I can only imagine that to be similar to the type of sensation i get when I run into the conflicts and logical inconsistencies i see with arguments like those.

I do not see any logical inconsistencies or conflicts in my position but I will admit that it could either be because I am too close to them or because I cannot express them properly to you. Either way I feel the same way about you that you feel about me .

16) Actually I see you more like a deist clinging to his culturally christian heritage. If you would just let go of the mystical part of christianity while embracing the good philosophical parts (a bit like atheists for Jesus do, except it would be deists for Jesus) you would have much less need to perform the kind of mental gymnastic you do to fuse your core deistic beliefs with your dwindling bible based beliefs. But, hey, nobody can force themselves to believe something so no biggie.

Also, that you only take from the bible the things that you like tells me that despite your protests of thinking god and his law are perfect you act like they are not and excise those parts of his law that you believe imperfect on the excuse that it must be their rendition which isn't, despite the bible's claim that you cannot do so.

17) I agree with you that science is not enough, where I disagree is in the nature of the second eye. where you turn to religion I turn to philosophy, which I would describe (imperfectly) as religion without the occult. I find the combination of science and philosophy superior to the combination of science and religion. I think that so will you one day, it is just that you are not on a point of your philosophical journey were you are ready to shed religion. That's okey, we all needed a security blanket or our mother's skirt at one point or another (note: even if god exist doesn't mean that religion isn't a security blanket anymore than my mother existing doesn't mean I didn't seek refuge behind her skirt).

18) And what of those conflict you could not resolve? Did you just cast them aside saying "this must be a man-made distortion" and excise them thus fashioning god in your image?

19) I do understand, it is just that what you describe is not perfection to me. That we have a different view of perfection doesn't mean I cannot conceive it, it means that what you conceive as perfect doesn't cut it as such to me even though I can conceive of it.

20) sorry...