a blind person was included in you variable, i did not change the variable, i plugged in a value that should of worked in the formula but doesnt. are blind people not people? did you not say everyone has to be able to observe it for it to be empirical? if those two statements are true, you can use logic to say that a blind person has to be able to observe it for it to be empirical.

so basically you want all public schools to tell 5 year olds that if you arent fit you're gonna die?  i can understand why some people would consider that unethical...

didnt really provide any useful information. i think it basically says only public schools in Louisiana teach something contradictory to evolution...

also, why do you think its so important to teach evolution in elementary school?

"american schools will NEVER teach it in science class!"

what are you smoking? im pretty sure every american school teaches evolution in science class...

and that was a pretty pathetic explanation of what evolution is too.

i saw it in the theater; there were a couple good jokes, but it was mostly lame imo...

well, there was never any logic in your posts....

hit me up again when you actually have found something intelligent to say...

"
So you mean, the book that is the ONLY account and reference for a belief structure is full of indiscrepancies and un-truths? INFACT."

the bible is actually a collection of many books. they are stories that teach lessons and are not historical accounts although some of them might have stories of historical events. for example the first creation story being written during the time of the Jewish exile to Babylon emphasizes the importance of the saboth to Jews, a distinguishing feature of the Jewish faith compared to other religions of the time that helped jews keep their identity in the vast sea of cultures in Babylon...

"
Therefore logically, for God to be perfect, he could not create anything extra, and could not create whatever would be missing. He could only exist as a perfect entity. One of the main rules about the christian god is his awesome perfection.

I am trying to prove this wrong, using logics."

well, thats a pretty pathetic attempt, because thats the most obscure definition for perfect i have ever heard. I think its safe to assume that when all religious people use the adjective, perfect, to describe God they are not claiming that he is an exact value that when added onto would lose perfection. they are referencing his all powerful, all knowing, all good nature...

"If god were to create human beings in his own image he would need to share some of the power, knowledge and kindness"

wrong... that is not what they are referencing when they say in his image...

"Accepting the very existence of hell is dodgy at best, but its certainly not good. Why havent god removed hell as an option ?"

God being an all-powerful, all knowing, all good being; nothing can be bad for him, why would all powerful being feel the need to remove the option?

"God created the imperfect human, hoping that he will take the right choices and come to heaven, yet he already knows like Santa Claus, who gonna be good or bad, so what is then the point ? Humanity is erranous, and imperfect. God is too. He would not need to create people he already knows will go to hell, seeing as this defies his all-good purpose."

God created humanity knowing everything humanity will do. im not God, i dont fully understand God, a human trying to fully understand God is probably comparable to a single celled organism trying to fully understand a human... how can you rationalize an all powerful, all knowing, all good being's thoughts to that of a human? you cant, the fact that humans cant isnt proof that God is imperfect...

"So it is better for a perfect entity to create waste ? For that is all a pointless creation is..."

does an atheist call all life pointless? God not seeking something from humanity does not make humanity pointless for a christian anymore then it does for an atheist..

"Ok, Im with you...God always existed...ok...why create our planet ? Why do it when he did ? Why create humanity when he did. We know for a fact universe existed long before our earth did..so why suddenly this life on this planet, to a being that is already complete and does not need ?"

im not God, i dont fully understand God, a human trying to fully understand God is probably comparable to a single celled organism trying to fully understand a human...

"I think this part was below your average high-class responses. You compare Rapist murderers to heroes ? even in a different lighting these are still obvious counterparts. Can they be compared..sure...can they be merged..probably. But can the classes i boxed them in be merged... No."

i did not merge the two, i simply proved that they are human inventions; look at animals and you dont call them murderers or rapists even when they murder and rape their own kind...

"No matter the number, this does not change the fact that god must know all to be all-knowing, and god must be able to change all to be all-powerful. So if god knows he wont change some guys life, then redecides and changes it anyways, god has proven all-powerful but not allknowing. If god knows he wont change some guys life, and then want to change it, but cant..he is not all-powerful, but is indeed all-knowing."

ok, assume God is all knowing. he is all powerful and he has the ability to change his mind. but unless he changes his mind he is still all knowing; so just assume he doesnt change his mind even though he has the power to, and he is both

"Someone saying he is experiencing it is not considered empirical. Everyone should be able to verify whether or not he is "feeling" God. That's what empirical means"

so empirical was impossible before we were able to read brain activity to prove whether someone is actually sensing what they claim to sense? no. thats the stupidest thing i've read in this thread and thats saying alot. a million people saying they sensed something is a million people getting similar results in the same experiment and is empirical...

when was the last time a religious leader claimed that there was no God? there are hundreds of them alive all the time, apparently all experiancing God. discrediting them all as liars would be like discrediting all science by claiming the scientists to be liars...

if you want something repeatable; alot of people do sense God that are religious, if you're really interested in finding out the truth, maybe you should devote your life to worship of God and maybe you'll have your proof before you die...

you're a stubborn scientist ignoring what the majority of the world holds true and refusing to do an experiment because it might change your mind...

> SOL wrote:
<> I think that's the difference between believers and non-believers.  Empirical experience is experienced in the same way by everyone, Experiencing God isn't.

people have empirical experiences of God...

atheists base their entire concept of humanity by relying on blind faith to our senses, and then they attack our senses whenever someone claims to have sensed God; its hypocritical if you ask me...