(June 11, 2015 at 9:52 am)SteveII Wrote: I don't have to prove any of it. It is my THEORY. Just like scientific theories (like evolution), I am considering the evidence, developing a probabilistic scenario that fits this evidence, and I cannot find solid contradictory evidence or a competing theory that fits these observations better. You can whine that any or all of these things are not true but you cannot prove any of them are untrue. Therefore I am reasonable (not necessarily right) to conclude God exists.
Oh, and I can test my THEORY: God still works in people's lives, there is the "inter-witness" of the Holy Spirit, miracles still happen, and we continue to have a god-shaped hole in our psychology generation after generation.
There's a shitload of intellectual dishonesty in here. If you're honest with your approach you have no grounds for denying anybody's claims about anything; whether it be other religions, Sasquatch, homeopathy, etc. Just because it can be imagined does not necessarily mean it's possible.
Analysis of available information does not lead to God. You already accept the existence of God imbued with all the characteristics that have been assigned to it over thousands of years. It's inconceivable to me that if there was no religion or idea of God to begin with that somehow God would become a rational explanation for our observations. This is what you would have us believe.
It reminds me of the scene from Hunt For Red October where Jonesy explains that the software being used to identify submarine acoustics was originally designed to detect underwater seismic events. When the input 'confuses' the software it 'runs home to mama' and falsely concludes that what it is detecting is magma displacement.
