Reasons

[Eilonnwy]

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 agree, faith doesn't require evidence, and I find that to be an illogical way to approach belief. I respect your right to hold that belief, but because of that we can't have too much of a meaningful conversation because we're starting out with a premise we disagree on.

I find it kind of futile to come here and try and talk about religion/god when we require proof and you don't. There's really no way to come to a consensus, but that's your prerogative. I have no problem talking with you if you can concede to the points that we make if you don't have anything but blind faith to back up your reasons.

I have no problem with philosophy. It's interesting, though admittedly I'm not as educated on it as I would like to be. But I'm trying to self educate since I cannot afford college. What I do know is that philosophy is based on reason and reason is based on evidence, at least that's what my reasoning is.

And yeah, I wish the article was online in full. It's really good. :/