I see you're still going at it hammer and tongs here. I have to admit, you've converted me. Please allow me to farewell you all by urging you to look at this website, which provides no less than 78 arguments for the existence of a Christian god - most of them completely unanswerable.
http://groups.msn.com/AtheistVSGod/godexists.msnw

I see that poor old Timmy's understanding of the natural sciences is as deficient as his understanding of the social sciences. Scientific method involves the testing of falsifiable hypotheses against the probablity that test or expiremental results could have been obtained randomly. Results are normally reported formally in probablistic terms, such that, e.g. p = 0.05 (or that there is a 5% probability that the results were obtained randomly).

Scientific tests and experiments are normally replicated to increase their validity. If you know anything about probability at all, you would know that the probability of obtaining the same results in a repeated experiment is determined by multiplying the probabilities together: in the above example the probability of getting the same result twice in independent tests is .05 x .05 = .0025, or a 0.25% probability that the test results were randomly obtained, etc etc.

Obviously, this means that while science would never claim 'absolute' certainty that a result is valid (or 'true'), we can claim with measurable confidence the validity of our hypotheses.

There is no way that personal or folk beliefs (or 'theories', I suppose - in the broadest possible sense) concerning the existence of dragons, fairies, gods or 'resurrected' sons of gods can be falsified and measured according to scientific method. The null hypothesis to the proposition that dragons exist is that they do not exist, and this is an impossible hypothesis to test probabilistically. Or rather, it is too easy to reject at any of the conventional probability levels, while always remaining 'theoretically' possible.

Uneducated, unevolved, unintelligent or religious readers will undoubtedly not comprehend the above logic, but I'm sure that won't prevent them from posting something ignorant in response.

Morgan

Morgan, gee, ur sounding like mr Pot, u know, Pol. '
unevolved etc..... hmm have u joined the 'master race' recently bro ? :)

I can follow your logic and reasoning, and I'm sure Timmy can also.

I can't speak for him, but for me, attempting to prove God is a rather fruitless exercise. The gospel spread initially and still today in some 'frontier' areas, by the power of the word, not just the word. If this were not so, we would have 'evolved' out of action long ago mate.

LUIGI. I don't believe your converted, I checked the site and now I know u need 'more work' :) Ok.. lets get down to it.
Lu, we can't prove God, we believe, by faith, but the grounds of our faith are much stronger in terms of reasonableness than you and others give credit. I began where you are now, in my 20s, and ended up where I am now, clearly convinced. Many great and esteemed minds have gone down the same route, as u should know. That which makes the difference is the gospel, good news, Peter made a good speech in Acts 10, perhaps you are aware of it ?

Regarding 'the fairy tales' of the bible, and the problems of Oral Tradition. Surprisingly, many helpful insights on this general subject are gained by studying the Islamic hadiths. They are compiled from collections of oral tradition, thru what are called 'chains of narrators'. When the tradition ended up the same thru various different chains, it is regarded as reliable when subjected to other tests as well. Unquestionably, oral tradition is reliable, especially when conveyed in story form (Jesus and the parables) or song. In the case of the Gospels, the chain of narrators is maximum of 2, from Eye witness to recorder. Far less than the numerous and very indirect experience of the Muslims.

At a village in Malaysia I was told (once) about a persecution event over 20yrs ago. I'm going to record my memory on paper, return to the village, and see how it stacks up :)

David, you've lost the plot.Morgan is both level headed and logical.Sucking up to your perceived god will not change the reality.I know what religion is all about.I've seen the anguished and distraught clergy struggling with their sexuality and the meaning of life,only to be left in a meaningless void.Your god is your relationships with those whom you love and the struggle to become a better person in terms of improving yourself and understanding the the laws of the cosmos which determine our fate.
There are no absolute truths in the evolution of human beings.We need a changing environment to test our courage, resolve and to give life it's sparkle and adventure.The traditional religions are both predictable and boring.What sort of a god would create such a dynamic,powerful universe and at the same time produce such a boring non factual book as the Bible?It just dosen't make sense!!
universe and at the sam time pro

Yup - right on cue, Bozo.

If you were interested in verifiable facts, you'd know that Pol Pot's campaign was against the educated class, rather than ignorant peasants. For the record, I resent the comparison - Pol Pot was a murderous tyrant and I am nothing of the sort.

I'm just an ordinary rational guy who is very worried about the current political ascendancy of the bloody-minded Christian far right, both here and internationally.

I guess you'll apologise for yet another error in fact and continue your bluster, blissful in wilful ignorance.

Just as well you guys still make me laugh :)

Morgan

Morgan,

You don't seem to understand what "moral relativism" actually entails. Moral relativism means that there is no absolute standard by which you can judge right and wrong. Moral judgments are made by each individual according to their own standard or whim. Christianity has an absolute standard. Murder is always wrong. Killing in a justified war or in genuine self-defence is never wrong. There is no self-determination of morality in Christianity. Morality is totally derived from the Scriptures which we accept as the revealed word of God.

Also, we are only interested in imposing our religious standards on everybody else for the sake of society as a whole. ie. we will impose our standard that steeling, fraud, murder, rape and paedophilia etc. are wrong, and that a society that tolerates such things will self-destruct.

Also, we do not rely on "debatable translations of transcribed oral histories and legends to base your current political agendas on fine semantic differences in the ancient Hebrew in which these myths were originally written." There is no debate about the meaning of "ratsah".

And killing people by capital punishment and warfare is acceptable because Scripture allows it.

We can't provide absolute truths? See above. In fact, absolutes are a logical certainty due to the philosophical impossibility of no absolutes. ie. Saying there are no absolutes is in itself an absolute statement.

John Warren,

So by your (Macquarie) definition, a rusting nail is an example of evolution? Yeah, right. And what does this have to do with anything?