>>(My UT displayal shows all text properly.)
>
>The display issue has apparently been corrected. Your comment originally displayed "I see it" - the word indirectly was not there, yet I could see it in the autoquote on the reply screen.
>
>>Huh? What kind of reasoning is this?
>
>Apparently one that you are not willing to accept.

Del, again you removed parts of my text that you shouldn't have removed, because of the context of things. I don't mind that you remove 'old' parts, but please do not remove parts of parts. Hope you know what I mean to say here. Now I can't react well on your reaction.


>>if, instead, science came with proof that makes its existence unplausible, then I would have said that it doesn't exist. And that's exactly what's the case with your God.
>
>There is nothing within science that makes the existence of my God "unplausible."

There is a LOT in science that makes the existence of your God "unplausible" (sorry, "implausible"). All kinds of religious experiences appear to be nothing else but the result of chemical processes in the brain and body. Science is unveiling more and more of those experiences at a rapid pace, esp. since we have CT-scans and the like.


>>About your catalyst theory, tell me, who or what created your Creator???????
>
>He wasn't created. He is eternal. At some point, you have to come to the conclusion that there is at least something out there that has no creator. Science really cannot deal with that. It follows that there must be something "supernatural."

He wasn't created. He is eternal. That is the most stupid argument you can come with. For me it indicates that you don't think logical about this subject. A complex entity (as your God is) MUST have evolved in time.

>>About your indirect-evidence theory, psychology has far better theories about what happens to converted people.
>
>Yeah, I'm aware of some of the psychological explanations.
>
>>>Interesting. Your comment about Bret being "still in a phase that is normal for children" would seem to be arrogant by the definition you cite. The implication is that you have "grown up" and he has not. That carries an air of superiority from my perspective.
>>
>>Well, in this case you should not have snipped (removed) the sentence that followed. By removing that line my above text gets out of context.
>
>I'm not following you there. The comments in question was made in the message that preceded that one.

The original text was:

I don't want to be crude or arrogant. But first let me search up the definition of 'arrogant': Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others

I can't help but immediately think of orthodox religious people when I read that definition.

You removed this last line and you shouldn't have done that, because it essentially says what I wanted to communicate.