Atheism is just as irrational as Theism.

[fr0d0]

Frodo, how exactly would one consider something if it didn't make sense? On what grounds? What would be the criteria? How would we map that data? You've tried to define your god to many people on this forum, if the only person who seems to understand it is you, that may be an issue that you need to deal with. Your personal god may make sense to you, but that doesn't mean that there's actually anything to it. You're probably just twisting yourself in knots.

Appeal to fictitious "no one else shares your view" when every Christian here does, as well as universally. I don't think the atheists here understand it either, if that's what you meant. Thanks for the free psychoanalisys either way. Seems rather a low blow.

Let me guess what you're talking about.. apologies if it's not.

Our current ontology bias, the one prevelant in modern society, is material (the ontology of X being what it means for X to exist). We are strongly science focussed, so we tend to think of existence in terms of what we can sense, rather what we can rationalise. A chair exists because we can touch, feel and see it. God doesn't exist because we can't sense him.

But what about a committee, a curriculum, havoc, a business... those things aren't evidenced materially. At what point does a business exist? Is it when the idea is concieved; premises bought; stock purchased; when it posseses a licence to trade? There isn't a material existence here, but a functional one.

So to map data we can look at function. That is where the criteria apply. Those are the grounds for consideration. That's how you make sense of it.