"Donal" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:
"Donal" wrote in message
...

Jeff Morris wrote:
Belief in God should be an absolute act of faith.

Incorrect. Many religions demand absolute faith - which is quite
different.



How?

Most religions are based around a particular view of "God". I am
suggesting that there must be a God, because nothing else can explain
the Universe or mankind.

I still don't see the difference. I contend that it is impossible to prove the
existence of God, it must simply be an act of faith. That some religions
require additional acts of faith is beside the point.





Arguing for the
existence of God on scientific or logical grounds is accepting the

possibility

that someone could simply provide a stronger argument the God doesn't
exist.

True. However, if you have Faith, then you know that nobody will be
able to provide a stronger argument.


In other words, while you argue "scientifically" you will not consider the
possibility that you might be wrong. And yet you say that the is not an
absolute act of faith.

That isn't true.


We hold many opinions that we believe to be certainties. How often do
you see two people arguing about facts - when they are both convinced
that they are absolutely correct? Are they both acting on an absolute
act of faith?

Nonsense. While its true that ill-informed people argue over "facts," that is
not the same as a scientific proof.


Have you ever lost a bet? Were you acting on an absolute act of faith?

I don't see your point. You're claiming that presuming a conclusion as an act
of faith is proper scientific method. I claim this makes you not credible.




The funny thing is that your position is very much like a zealot's. You
constantly tell me that I am wrong, and yet you offer no evidence to
back up your position.

When did I tell you that you were wrong? I've only said that your opinion is
not evidence for something.



For example - you are trying to tell me that I am demonstrating an
absolute act of faith. The reality is that unless you offer evidence to
support your view, then you are behaving as if you were saddled with
absolute faith.

No. You seemed to tell me that you have faith that no one can change your mind.
Why should I even begin a serious discussion under those terms?

It is not my intent to destroy your faith; I'm only saying that faith and
science are two different domains. A cornerstone of science is having no
preconceived notions as to where the evidence leads. Faith is exactly the
opposite - it is the belief in something in the absence of evidence.



I have explained why I think that there must be a God. I've offered a
justification for my belief. People with absolute faith find it
difficult to offer a logical explaination for their views.

You offered your personal justification, but not scientific evidence.

Your absolutly correct that people of faith cannot provide a logical
explanation. I would not expect one. There is nothing wrong with this. Quite
the opposite, I think it is wrong to try.





If
you want to believe, fine - but don't try to prove that your faith is

justified.

I've been discussing the existence of God, not faith. Why do you think
that I shouldn't argue for the existence of God?


You're not arguing if deby the possibility that you might be proven wrong.
You're simply asserting your faith.

Perhaps you should look at your own posts????

I did look. Several times you've said that you didn't think there was enough
time for evolution to have created a thumb. I've asked you to provide evidence.
You then get all huffy and claim I'm a zealot.

The bottom line here is that your opinion, completely unsubstantiated, isn't
"evidence." The opinion of thousands of biologists and tens of thousands of
other scientists who have embraced evolution, has a bit more credibility than
your opinion.

By choosing the "thumb" as your focal point you have essentially said that the
mechanism of evolution is not sufficient to have created any life at all. While
the thumb is a rather interesting organ, it is not particularly complex or
unique. You're attempting to invalidate one of the greatest scientific
achievements of our age simply by saying, "I've considered this, and I don't
think it works."

Sorry, Donal. You're just wasting our time here.


I've tried to offer evidence! I've even tried to introduce the
accepted alternatives into the discussion. You are simply asserting
that I am wrong.

Evidence? did I miss something? did you reference any scholarly work?


I find it strange that people get so defensive when evidence is put
forward that suggests that God must exist.



I agree, why are you so defensive? Are you trying to prove God's existence
as
a way to bolster your faith?

Why do yo keep trying to turn this into a religious discussion?

Why don't you offer some evidence to back up your position?

I did. I offered the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences. Frankly,
I'm not the one discounting an entire field of science; I don't have to "prove"
evolution, thousands of others have already done that.


Stop acting in the manner that you (falsely) accuse me of.

Now that's a real low blow!