I know God exists & the court of highest appeal is me.

Look at this in terms of your signature: Which one of us is religious vs. scientific when it comes to the question of God?You see ignorance of God as a reason to believe he does not exist.We see it as a confirmation of what the Bible says, 'that man is lost and in need of salvation by God'. We cannot cross from here to there. But if He exists, He could. And He could lead us home.As for testing, what exactly are you testing for? Coherence?And remember that many things cannot be tested in the historical sciences. We must infer, based upon what is observed now. The same goes for the future.We extrapolate from what evidence we do have what happenned in the past and also into the future, using logic as our guide.

Straggler in respone to Iano:Such a test does exist. It is the test for logical coherence. And you are absolutely correct that Iano's statement that,'all knowledge is equally subjective', fails to support itself, because that statement would then be only subjective.Straggler:If logic is not objective, then we have no hope of getting outside of ourselves and seeing reality for what it is.Isn't it you, who (in the other thread) implies this very idea, by believing that everything is just matter, that we are (in a sense) only brains in a jar?

Straggler:What evidence would you be willing to accept? What proof of God's existence do you seek?

Straggler:There was another man who refused to believe until he had physical proof. And that is reletively reasonable I might add. Though we must remeber that science postulates and believes int things long before the theory is proven. So we do not do so absolutely.Anyway... this man was very dissapointed by the fact his Lord had been crucified. He felt very taken and used. All of his investments of time and loyalty to a man that appeared to be a fraud. Christ crucified made no sense to him. I think we can appriciate his attitude.He would not believe in the ressurection unless he was personally able to touch this supossed risen Lord.But upon contact, his countenance changed significantly.John 20:26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." ( John 20:28 - Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”... )The irony is, if we would only believe in the same manner we believe our theories to be valid (based on much evidence) even without full disclosure, then he promises to reveal himself to us individually and bring us to life on the inside, so that we are not just bags of atoms.Untold millions have seen Him. And I have seen Him. And I give my life and reputation to share the good news.

Well irrespective of any differences btween us Straggler, on that point, I wholeheartedly agree.Look, I have to go. I just don't have time for EVC any more. But I may pop in now and then.You guys have helped me edit my proposition a little, so thanks for that...Just think for yourself man. Don't let anyone other than logic himself... help you to examine your deductions about everything.And as bizzare as it seems (and I confess it is radical), it never hurts to ask Him for help either when searching for the existential and philosophical answers of meaning and purpose in life.Logic Himself is alive and watching. He won't leave us as orphans if we call upon Him. But to do that, we have to humble ourselves. After-all we are the students. And we are sinners.To us, his thoughts are calculus, and we don't see the need to learn His ways if we really only want candy.Happy trails...

Your right... In fact, the context (or abstract) came amongst the questions and comments made by another party at the journal site.That's the difficulty of a relatively uneducated man such as myself, in conveying these things.I wanted the argument to be as simple as possible. But... an abstract it is...Thank you.

You probably already saw this, but I forgot to post a link to the appropriate thread to continue this side of the discussion: http://EvC Forum: What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only) -->EvC Forum: What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only)

Hi Mod, if we are going to play metaphysics, then let's play metaphysics.Mod:Is your statement absolute? If not, then you must mean that there are some absolutes.Mod:Is that conclusion only subjective, or is it an objective truth? Do you mean we must have faith in logic?Mod:Yes, yes, that's what you mean. I agree!Mod:I thought that we could not develope ways of doing this without smuggling in subjectivity?Logic is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to reality but by logic. Else there is none that is objective.PLease hear me... It's not that we can know omnipotently that logic will lead us home. It's just that we know we will fall off a cliff as we grope around in the dark. So logic is our only possible light, to see in the darkness because as you said, we must assume it's validity because otherwise we are blind men for sure without hope!Mod:And what you have is what exactly? Are you absolutely sure you can answer that question objectively?Mod:If logic is valid yes. And it had better be for all of our sakes!Mod:But that would be speaking their language. If they refuse to speak logically, then you must either leave them, or join them.Mod:Look at you talking out both sides of your mouth; 'modulating' your proofs as it were...Mod... if belief is not synonymous with knowledge, then your belief in logic is meaningless. And as such, you derision upon my brother Iano is nothing but mystical incantations.

Modulous:Do you intend to tell me that you believe in nothing? And again, that you actually believe that?