This discussion seems to revolve around the idea that "I think that he who approaches God must believe he exists and that he recompenses those who seek him":

I disagree that believing that God exists is necessary in order to approach Him. At times it helps but at other times it hinders.

Existence is cheap: a multitude of things exist, some of them not even so wholesome, so how does attributing this property (of existence) to God help in encouraging people to venerate Him and seek His ways and proximity?

What exists (and what doesn't), or how and when it was created, are scientific rather than religious questions - a religious person ought to base their life on faith and need not recourse to such irrelevant materialistic questions (unless they also happen to also be a scientist whose livelihood depends on such questions, but then it's not in their personal-religious capacity).

Regarding recompensation for those who seek God, this is provided by the miracle of faith itself because then the devotee is no longer concerned with the things of the world and is no longer troubled or hurt by them. On the other hand, a belief in God that is derived by evidence has no particular merit and does not create any miracle: such a belief becomes merely a part of ordinary materialistic life.

The mixing up of science and religion is unhealthy for both. One should separate what they do in the lab and what they base their life on at home or in church.

It is always interesting to try to follow your thought processes, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, With regard to evidence for the evolutionary view of the earth's beginnings, you say that I refuse to examine evidence beyond my own philosophical frame of reference... You even admit to being incapable of seeing a theistic alternative.<<

Indeed so. But I would point out that my approach only rejects one of the thousands of explanations that have been put forward over the years as the means to examine our history have expanded (telescopes, Newton's Principia, the electromagnetic spectrum etc.). I can see, given the hindsight of history, how they each arrived at their theories. You, on the other hand, have rejected the thousands in favour of the one.

And this, you have completely backwards:

>>That you say there are 'thousands of alternative answers', this confirms to me the way people usually think about these issues in practice. They start with a theory or an idea and see how the evidence fits into it, not the other way around.<<

The only way you could possibly entertain the many alternative possibilities is to avoid filtering them through a single "theory or idea". This single filter is exemplified in this statement of yours:

>>One alternative is the biblical one. We seek to discover what insights this approach offers, and we think it offers much<<

Once again, the only route available to you - by your own admission - is via a pre-commitment to rely upon the biblical narrative. I am genuinely unable to see how you are able to convince yourself that this is more "open" than the examination of the scads of evidence for alternatives to young-earth creationism.

I used the expression "balance of probabilities" in order to highlight this discrepancy. Can you explain how, in your mind, this doesn't apply here?

Pericles,
I'm struggling to follow what you're saying. Perhaps we have crossed wires with communication. I question why I bother keeping up my end when you don't seem to follow what I'm trying to say (and I wonder if you're really trying to understand, but you're possibly thinking likewise towards me.)

You seems to be saying I'm rejecting 'scads' of evidence. I'm not sure what evidence your referring to. I'm not rejecting anything.

Dear Pericles,

I don't think that Dan rejected thousands of other explanations - he simply selected one, that one which is most likely to progress his goals according to his own values. As you probably have different values and goals, it's not surprising and not contradictory that you select other theories.

Reality itself is not explainable by any theory anyway, so choose for yourself such an explanation that will forward your goals.

If one wants to achieve everlasting peace and joy in the company of God and the saints, then Dan's theory is valid (among thousands of other theories which you also would not consider) - and if one wants to achieve technological advancement and conquer this universe with it, then your theory is also as valid for that stated purpose.

It looks as though Yuyutsu understands what is happening here, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Dear Pericles, I don't think that Dan rejected thousands of other explanations - he simply selected one, that one which is most likely to progress his goals according to his own values.<<

My goal here is not to argue religion, simply to explore the thought processes that arrive at what - to me - appear totally unreachable conclusions.

So far, everything appears to be progressing along a predictable path. You continue to offer nothing by way of justification (we're not talking "facts" here, as Yuyutsu helpfully points out) of your selected stance other than the blind adoption of the bible as your scientific baseline.

Which is of course perfectly fine, so long as you don't expect it to have any value in explaining the cosmos.

>>You seems to be saying I'm rejecting 'scads' of evidence. I'm not sure what evidence your referring to. I'm not rejecting anything.<<

And that is nothing more than self-delusion. You have rejected, and continue to reject, five hundred years of careful, painstaking and carefully thought-through advances in human knowledge.

Pericles,
You ask me for justification for a biblical position on origins. But a biblical position can never be justified to you, for you've already said, "I find it impossible to include the concept of a deity bringing our world into being ..."

So, in that sense there's no openness or possibility for meaningful discussion, but I'm curious. You keep saying I'm rejecting all this 'evidence' or 'knowledge'. Perhaps you could give an example of what you're talking about. It may help the conversation if you really want to pursue it.