Thanks for cleaning it up I considered doing the same, but was too lazy to sort through all these blocks of text. I wasn't offended dude, but thanks. Just to be clear here, I realize that in these discussions, I often come across as rather narrow-minded, considering the world within a fairly narrow scope (that which is provided by science). I just want to say that I'm not oblivious to this; really, the crux of my argument is that we don't have a choice, and this narrow scope is ultimately what we are limited to, whether we like it or not. I completely realize it may be unappealing, but that's how it is, IMO. While it's true that I don't harbor much interest for philosophy, I wouldn't say that I argue against it due to disinterest. Even if I were interested in it, I would still require some sort of argument for why it actually has any bearing on reality, if I am to consider it as a serious means of attaining knowledge. I mean, I like many things that have no bearing on reality. Like Star Wars. But if you told me Star Wars was a documentary, I will probably be skeptical unless you can demonstrate to me that it's applicable to the real world. The problem is that, even with some sort of numerical representation, there's still a subjective, human element in deciding what is greater and what is not. I think there was another thread here where I formulated my version of the Ontological argument that was along the lines of 1.) God is a perfect being 2.) Things that are simpler are more perfect than things that are complicated 3.) It is simpler to not exist than to exist 4.) Therefore, God does not exist. That is by no means meant to be some sort of serious logical proof, but I think it illustrates how you can subjectively generate arbitrary scales or measures for things, string various words together, and argue in favor of your own viewpoint. Right. But is there any point in us discussing anything beyond our understanding? The moment you define God as something beyond our understanding, I think the discussion comes to a halt. The best you can do is give it a moment's thought and say, 'yeah, maybe.' What more can you say about something incomprehensible? Right, I think you misread my statement. I alluded to the earlier part of this thread, where we discussed this. There's really no amount of evidence that would ever sway me from my atheism, and if a giant hand smacked the moon into the sun, or if a dude gave me a staff that can turn into a live snake on a whim, then I would still be skeptical and remain an atheist. The point of my post was not that evidence can sway me from my position; the point of my post was that empirical evidence can in principle exist. This evidence wouldn't sway me personally, but it could be there. I realize that you're talking about the concept of God not confined to any single religion, the Biblical reference was merely an example of empirical evidence within that framework.
