Dualism

[Purple Rabbit]

We're not shielding the many rabbit but the singular that covers all major faiths.

What is the ground for this cherry picking?

I'm sticking to my point and not widening it because that wouldn't make sense. Belief in God is an exception to the rule of science that everything requires proof. By definition, belief, or more accurately faith does not. You tried to encompass the entirety of religious observance and add in rationalisation for good measure. That may be your opinion but it's besides the point.

Only limited time to respond before I'm off to work.

That everything requires proof (before it can be claimed to be consistent with reality) is not a rule of science alone but also of plain logic. Otherwise you would have to make clear why empirical proof (is that what you mean with scientific proof??) is special in this regard, for the divide is in the first place an artificial divide made by man in using language. So by shielding of science AND logic you are in the realm of the illogic and the unscientific. It is important that you get this right. The realm we are talking about is the realm of illogic statements, statements not necessarily about our reality, for there are no rules here. Certainly there is no rule that the statements in any way are testable to relate to reality. There is no rule that one statement is consistent with other statements in that realm, because there is no logic in it and there is no testability. There are only unnumerable statements of which some might be true and others might be untrue. Within that realm you faith is a collections of specific belief statements from all the statements that are inthis realm of the illogic and the unscientific. You again provide no clear criterion to pick only certain statements from all possible statements.

---

We're not shielding the many rabbit but the singular that covers all major faiths.

What is the ground for this cherry picking?

I'm sticking to my point and not widening it because that wouldn't make sense. Belief in God is an exception to the rule of science that everything requires proof. By definition, belief, or more accurately faith does not. You tried to encompass the entirety of religious observance and add in rationalisation for good measure. That may be your opinion but it's besides the point.

The thing is that I have asked you repeatedly now to make clear why belief in god is an exception to the rule. Again you provide no argument other than 'widening the claim would make no sense'. This is diversion from the question asked. I did not ask you to widen the claim that belief in god makes sense to other statements in this realm of untestable illogic statements make sense. I asked the question about why you claim that belief in god makes sense (i.e. has any meaning or truth about reality to it)? Please answer the question asked.

---

Why does faith have to be an exception? Please answer that question for me.