George,

(1) "...different debating standards that you call “dishonest” and “sprinkled with jargon”. "

Where did I call anyone "dishonest"? It really isn't a sound procedure to conflate similar, but not identical, arguments from different individuals

(2) As to "different debating standards", this is precisely the point I'm making, there should be one debating standard.

(3) "... without us intentionally wanting to upset those who cannot follow the “jargon” necessary in this kind of opinion exchange."

You're being patronising--you could have a point, of course, however there's just a hint of the "Emperor's New Clothes" in some of the jargon, or the first year undergraduate essay, now I'm being patronising.

Antiseptic,

We will have to agree to differ.

"theism is not "belief"-based as such, it's an hypothesis to explain some observations and as such is most assuredly based on the epistemiological approach of the scientific method, with one cognitive leap which is that God may be real, which is assumed to be not valid within a scientific context generally."

You will have to explain how the hypothesis of theism can be tested, if it's not testable it's not a scientific hypothesis. What is a "cognitive leap"?

RMW<<..what actually is proof or evidence?
what counts as proof or evidence?>>

fact?
models?
fossils?

sensory experience?
proof must be in hardcopy!

<<Science advocates like to say
that science is the best or something to that effect.>>

its based on ability to state/replicate
ability to faulsify?

<<So what happens when science contradicts itself?

<<As an example,
one scientific study says mobile phones may trigger Alzheimer's:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2728149.stm
But another study claims mobile phones may protect against Alzheimer's:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8443541.stm

So which is it?>>

first you asked the wrong question
but to reply

both are true..[one in 1000 could be susceptible to cancer]
so ban them from using them..or else build in a levy..to find rectify any damage

but if everyone..was yapping to everyone[on phone
or on the web..they would be so switched on..altzheimers could dissappear all together..s

top the sleeper's sleeping
cause govt nanny state is watching that we do the right 'thing'..
ie talk toeach other..care..stay in touch..etc

you know that active people find to do

so both are fact
but do you let 5 die
by killing the fat guy?
or worse be helping them to kill them-self

or treat his diabetes
feed them vege-tables?

Dear Antiseptic,

It saddens me to see you here like that, torn and trapped by a pack of wolves, all due to an innocent mistake of yours - trying to 'prove' God.

God isn't an hypotheses, but suppose He were and suppose you were indeed able to prove that hypotheses, what then?

Then God would have turned from a hypotheses into a fact, then could you still possibly worship Him? Any form of relating to God as Fact, would degenerate into a business-relationship. Love and devotion would then be replaced by give-and-take. Yes, even AJ Philips and others would be 'convinced' and do the same then, but would it have any value? Worship would have turned into a purely practical, materialistic action: one's ego would see profit in worship - but could the ego itself ever be defeated that way?

Think of it this way: if God actually existed, would He be so cruel as to allow the world to have any 'holes' through which He can be seen? Would he so deny His love and salvation from His devotees just in order to 'show' some atheists that they are wrong and win the argument? In other words, is God such an egoist?

Nay, the world is a perfect and solid trap, without loopholes. So long as you stay focused on the world, more of this world will be revealed to you - but not God.

God's existence is meaningless: what is meaningful is your love to Him, asking nothing in return, not minding that He doesn't exist, that He will therefore not grant you any tangible boons, not minding even leaving this whole world behind, even logic itself, for Him. That you can do this, is the biggest miracle of all.

Your choice is always free, whether to attend to the world, along with its ever consistent phenomenal science; or to turn your back to it, seeking God. When you finally decide to turn away from the world, you cannot take anyone else with you - they too have free choice!

May God's blessings be upon you for ever.

Yuyutsu,

Whatever "god" is or isn't - if such an entity is more than an adjunct to human thought - I don't think it's a "He" or even a "he" (or a she).

According to you, in days gone by, we're already God, as is every"thing" - except we don't realise it.

Notwithstanding, it's difficult to talk about such an entity without attributing a gender to it.

@ one under god
"proof must be in hardcopy!"
"its based on ability to state/replicate
ability to faulsify?"
Which if any is valid to determine Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?

"so both are fact"
Then reality is contradictory....

Dear Poirot,

<<According to you, in days gone by, we're already God, as is every"thing" - except we don't realise it.>>

Indeed so. But it seems that Antiseptic conceives of God as an entity (but better wait for his response, shall we?), so I reduce that idea for him ad-absurdum.

<<Notwithstanding, it's difficult to talk about such an entity without attributing a gender to it.>>

Though not an entity, gender is a trap indeed. As God is not an entity, gender is not an issue, but I tend to use 'He' as a way of respect, given more of the readers of this forum are Christian rather than worship God as the Divine Mother. Not being able to satisfy everyone, whatever name enhances more devotion, the better.