QUOTE
Second, it wasn't an honest confession of faith. It was a claim of absolute knowledge.
Thats correct blind messiah. I dont profess to have faith that my car exists or my wife exists, (although some one like brave new world might accept that as a valid viewpoint). I have absolute knowledge they exist. My relationship with god is just the same, based on the same physical realities, and the same logical deductions made from those realities. Would you have me accept that my car or my wife do not actually exist ?
I may get round to responding to you point by point although i am tempted not to. What would be the point. It would be like that non colour blind person trying to explain, point by point, to the colour blind person the exact juxtapositioning and colour frequencies of the dots creating the figure 8. Absolutely unproductive.
May i say I do not have any problem with your personal pov, and completely empathise with it. I lived by it for the first two decades of my life.
However, what angered me (probably mostly as the result of cumulative frustration with such viewpoints, as much as your own statements) is that you (like so many others) impose on all the universe, and on me, with absolute certainty that you are right, the strictures resulting from your own inability to see god. It is not that i will not accept your stictures. It is that i cannot, given the evidence before me.
I will do you the courtesy of responing to a couple of your points individually, so you can beter appreciate our differences.
QUOTE
Both the historical and contempory record of god indicate he does not even exist. The only evidence for God is those who claim they have felt God on an emotional level. There is no evidence of him affecting the physical world. This leads to the belief that he is simply an idea created by the human mind. Nothing more than an electrical impulse.
This is not true. It is your interpretation of what happened. Many people, my self included. record physical manifestations of god where he physically alters the objective reality and material objects in the world. Thats what "miracles" are. What your statement indicates is that you do not BELIEVE these people. As i said, you are entitled to your view on tha,t but your actual statement above is incorrect.
From that point on most of your rather cynical responses simply indicate your inability, or choice, not to BELIEVE what i was saying.
By doing so, you do not have to accept or attempt to rebut the physical realities of many other people. you just dont believe them. This (as i sad much earlier) makes it difficult to carry on a productive debate.
QUOTE
Perception doesn't alter logic. Perception alters science, logic is a means of pertaining knowledge outside of the senses.
Of course what we perceive alters our application of logic. In creating and refining hypotheses we use logical deductions. However those deductions, and thus our result,s are entirely dependent on what we are able to observe/perceive(both withour senses and with independent measuring devices such as machines or mathematical devices such as algorithims.) But, again, we can only evalute what our senses, our machines and our algorithims inform us of. So perception does alter logical deduction.
But, still none of what has been mentioned in this thread about Big Bang, black holes or singularities has been proven. They are all theories not yet proven by science.
