>There is a limit to human intelligence. You would know if there wasn't. Think about it. <g>

Prove it. I didn't say a limit to MY intelligence, which there undoubtably is. I said human intelligence.

>To make the assertion that there are no 'levels' is just plain willful ignorance of the patent facts of life. Kind of like burying your head in the sand.

Quite the opposite, really.

>?? What is wrong with despair.. What an odd question. It sounds like you've never encountered the real thing. I'm talking the 'no hope whatsoever' kind here and perhaps you're thinking of something else?

And what hope does "god" give? Hope that there's life after death? Hope that everything is explained with a convienent three letters?

You missed the point of the question. Even if it does prove there is no hope, why does that make the starting point wrong? Fact is, it doesn't. Regardless, I don't believe that there is a limit to human intelligence, until you can prove it. If there appears to be no limit, it seems that there is hope there.

Like I said, whats wrong with living for today the best you can? Whats wrong with not knowing wether or not there will be tomarrow? Why does the fact that nothign is definite mean that the starting point is wrong?

>If you assert that you are a dreamer that implys that you have hope. Those who despair have no hope ergo they do not dream.

I'm not asserting that I am a dreamer, I'm asserting that you are. Its ironic that people call me one though.

You are the one that looks at despair and says "Well, this can't be right" and decides that something supernatural exists.

>Using ignorance as a proof ("I don't think we have a great enough understanding") is really the lazy way out IMO and certainly not a 'proof' for your claims.

Um.... what claims have I made in this thread, Doug? I'm not using ignorance as proof, however, it is a fact that we don't know what an electron consists of. Seems to me that if everything consists of atoms, and electrons are in atoms, and parcticals are in electrons, and we have NFC what a partical is, we have absolutely no understanding of "the starting point".

>The logic is plain but you'll need to work through it yourself I suppose.

If you accept the fact that human intelligence has specific limits, the logic is very plain.

Prove to me that the limits exist. Make me accept that fact. Show me reasons. Symobolic logic and derivations if you have to... come on, I dare you.

>But that requires that you really do care so if in a month or three I ask you if you've read the references I've given and you sidestep or say no then I suppose you really do not care. I'll stop here and leave the rest to you. At that point it's a moral failure on your part (by willfully ignoring information) not an intellectual one.

I'll read them eventually; I haven't had time today! Point is, while the logic may be valid, there are many premises that you simply cannot prove or even verify.

>My Christian beliefs certainly do not prohibit me from examining other points of view despite your inability or unwillingness to believe this fact, but if you want to live in a delusional state that's ok. *chuckle*

If thats what you want to believe.

>The thing is is that you cannot use your ignorance about god to say that my knowledge of God is incorrect. How can you know? You're trying to use darkness as a rationale for believing there is no light when I am asserting there is both.

I'm not rationalizing anything for believing anything, am I?