>>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.
>
>FWIW, I'm trying to make it clear what I'm responding to. I actually find it annoying (and I know many others here feel this way) when someone quotes the whole message. The fully quoted message typically gets in the way, especially in that readers can flip back to the original message to see the full context if they want. Not only is it hard to weed thru the message to find the actual reply, it is sometimes unclear which part of a paragraph one is responding to.

And I must conclude that you continue to remove parts that make remaining texts out of context. What you find annoying is what I prefer, and what you prefer (removing essential parts) is what I find annoying. In this way you are killing this discussion. You are applying a false tactic here, namely replying to texts that you have first made out of context.


>>>>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.
>
>Implausible (or unplausible) is not really a colloquial term used here in the states. I took your "unplausible" to basically mean impossible. Google even lists implausible to be a synonym for impossible. In the context of the sentence you used unplausible, it sounded to me as if you were saying that science has successfully disproven the existence of God (thus my reaction).

Well, implausible just isn't a synonym for impossible. But why didn't you react on the rest of the paragraph?


>>>>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.
>
>Stupid? Do you really have to use that strong of a term? And you say you don't want to be arrogant? IAC, you are putting God in a box. Think more broadly. God is beyond anything you've ever imagined. If He is creator and sustainer of all things, He has to be. Who are you to say he MUST have evolved? The Bible says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. As such, he does not and did not evolve.

Stupid yes. I repeat that. Note that I'm calling the argument stupid, not you as a person. You don't take argumenting serious when you come with an answer like He wasn't created. He is eternal. You expect from me that I actually respect such an irratonal statement. No, you expect ALL PEOPLE to respect it. But do you really think that all those who politely say "well, personally I don't believe that" do not, at the same time, think that it's a stupid argument? I am not more arrogant here than you are. Rather, I am honestly saying what I really think of it.


>>You removed this last line and you shouldn't have done that, because it essentially says what I wanted to communicate.
>
>You said you didn't want to be arrogant. I responded that you basically had already made an arrogant statement (as in Msg# 1050705). That message does not contain the sentence you say I removed. In fact, as this discussion continues, you are sounding more and more arrogant, condescending, and elitist.

And again I must conclude that you continue to remove essential parts that make remaining texts out of context, making it impossible for me to adequately reply. And thus silently killing the discussion.


What strikes me is that each time that I give the honest opinion of a non-believer about a fundamental question, you orthodox christians (well ok, Brett and you) tell me that I'm arrogant. Well, so be it...

By the way, Brett wasn't polite enough to tell me what IWPFY means. Dragan thinks to know what it means: I Will Pray For You. Perhaps you can confirm his explanation?