Dualism

[fr0d0]

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.

By saying the singular is everything religious is off track. You keep trying to expand my statements into something different and this does the opposite of helping rational thought. ie respectfully, you need Address the point precisely. Forgive me if I misunderstand you.

I am not deliberately expanding your statements into something different. I am exploring their meaning. I am sincerely trying to understand you. This exploring of arguments and testing their consistency is to be expected in normal debate. They may be precise and evident to you, they are not to me. Please do not degrade yourself to simple ad hominem responding. You might ask me what I mean with my assertions and explorations of yours instead of trying to derail every attempt of me to clarify statements made. Do not interpret disagreement as offense by default. Now, what on earth do you mean with "By saying the singular is everything religious is off track."? Are you sure even that the grammar is right? It does not register over here. Please elaborate.

When you explore you always ridicule as well. This isn't conducive to constructive debate. You reap what you sow. Derisive slurs attract similar in response. I always try to treat serious points seriously.
I just explained above: By applying the idea stated that faith is an exception to the scientific rule to everything religious isn't logical. Only faith needs to be an exception.

You're (not singularly) obsessed with the conclusive proof of God's existence. This is folly as I've stated very many times here since January

Well, I haven't been around here for a while. If god is an obsession of anyone it is primarily the religious people, I should think. I have no special interests in a particular god (hindu, christian, nordic, egyptian or whatever). What interests me is the religious and the way they draw their religious conclusions. You offer an especially interesting example since you deny that belief should have some probability grounded in reality. Anyway that is what it looks like to me. And I wanna explore if this is so. If you need no scientific proof then what IS the basis to choose your christian god? If the only way you can address such a simple question is with hostility than you leave little room for me to label it not as closed-mindedness. Show me you're not and please answer the given questions or at least make clear why they cannot be answered or need not to be answered. This is debate and debate should be most enjoyable when opinions differ.

Strangely the question of proof of God's existence is the obsession of most non believers here. (You changed my words again in refutation.. I said interested in proof of God and you changed it to interest in god). I'd challenge you to produce one Christian that would be able to conclusively prove God's existence. You're singling me out for something universally accepted and doctrinal.
The basis for choosing to have faith in God is rationalisation. To support the resultant conclusions I believe by faith in God who's existence I cannot know. This is classic vanilla Christianity. Science doesn't have the tools in it's toolbox to consider this, so if you refuse to consider anything outside the boundaries of scientific thought then you're going to be found wanting.

'probability grounded in reality' - what does that mean? The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable. So is that probable? Are you misunderstanding my statement? Probable to me implies 'balance of proof in favour'. Would you agree?

To take us back to the beginning: The hard fact is that the concept exists which denies empirical proof. I'm afraid that's just got to be a thorn in science's ass, and it's going to have to live with it, unless people with power wipe it from history.

You will have to explain this in further detail because I see no hard fact without science, without an alternative method of justification, only with personal beliefs. The hard fact to me is it is logically impossible to build a unified reality from ungrounded belief statements. It is illogical, it makes no sense whatsoever. Earlier you seemed to suggest a difference between philosophical truth and scientific truth. But that is not a clear distinction. Science makes extensive use of logic. And even the choice of logic is a choice. There is modal logic, predicate logic, quantum logic even. Which one are you gonna choose and why. It all seems a very fuzzy selection process to me always leading you to the christian god. Well, I must say I am almost done waiting for a real meaningfull reply that really
adressess the questions I have formulated now over and over. Amaze me.

Well you've touched yourself on the frailty on belief in everything. Further than I would push it but then this seems to be your stance. In a way the existence of God is not the question. Faith in the existence of God is.
Scientific philosophy gets it arse about face wanting the unknowable answer. Scientific philosophy, I can conclude, will never have that answer, so will be infinitely frustrated. The concept 100% renders it impotent.
There's nothing 'fuzzy' about the process. Faith is necessarily without conclusive proof, and you seem to be demanding conclusive proof of it. Is that right?