I'm establishing Eilonnwy that faith has nothing to do with demonstrable proof. To want to validify claims of God's existence is a fallacy as there can be no demonstrable proof. So where does that leave us - it leaves us in a position where if you want to talk about claims of God existing you're talking with the wrong person. (I'd also suggest that the persuit is utterly foolish, but then let's just stick to what I think).
I have faith that God exists. I have no demonstrable proof. I don't wish to impose my ideas onto you, I want you to have your own ideas and I want to hear them.
I wouldn't say your mind is closed to science. I would say it's closed to stuff outside science, from your answer. Unfortunately I don't have access to that library. I reject supernatural hogwash too. Does that make me closed minded? I address the subject of philosophy but I limit myself to what is reasonable. I'd guess you don't address the subject of philosophy, counting it all as unreasonable.
You're most gracious. Respect to you for that.
I have faith that God exists. I have no demonstrable proof. I don't wish to impose my ideas onto you, I want you to have your own ideas and I want to hear them.
I wouldn't say your mind is closed to science. I would say it's closed to stuff outside science, from your answer. Unfortunately I don't have access to that library. I reject supernatural hogwash too. Does that make me closed minded? I address the subject of philosophy but I limit myself to what is reasonable. I'd guess you don't address the subject of philosophy, counting it all as unreasonable.
You're most gracious. Respect to you for that.
