Hi Mike,

(been swamped again)

>>May I ask, however, why it doesn't apply both ways? Why does DD have to "prove" his viewpoint for you to accept it?
>
>It depends what you mean by accept. I accept that there is a possibility that our universe could be created by some creative intelligence.
>
>However, I don't believe that this is, or is not the case. Doug does, and he uses that belief (along with many more explicit supernatural claims) as the most important premise in the majority of the arguments he engages in. If he want me to accept his arguments, it is important for him to prove that premise to me.

Well, then, you're still missing (ignoring, deliberately overlooking, avoiding or just cannot 'get it'?) my points.

What I am asserting is this: After examining all of the evidence from as many quarters as possible I believe (defined as 'conclude and make my own position' as opposes to 'guess', which is how you seem to be trying to define the word at times) that to take a position of faith is emminently more reasonable than not to. My beliefs are not guesses. They are conclusions that are IMO very rational and that in no way violate rational thinking processes. IOW, it is reasonable to take a position of faith, and in my mind far more reasonable that an other positions.

I do indeed make references to my personal spiritual experiences and candidly while you seemto denigrate them as not being able to elicit faith in yourself if you will read my posts more carefully (how many times have I suggested this? <g>) you will find that I will more often than not be the first to state that this is so. My personal spiritual experiences do nothing for your faith. However, presuming you to be a man of honor and a man of your word I would expect the same in return. I call that a common courtesy. As such, I have thought it valuable to let you know that while I have had these experiences and that they really do nothing to build or create faith they are, and if you think about it a little, would be the expected results of my positions, were my positions in fact, valid. IOW, I don't offer you them as proof for you to believe. Rather as proof that my beliefs have validity. That you reject them out of hand only seems to me to demonstrate that you hold a "pre-judged" position and are in fact closing your mind. Look... If you said you believed in flying saucers and said you were abducted I'd be very interested in your story. I may choose to not bleieve it (make your positin my own) but I'd at least give you the courtesy.

As to attempting to only use my beliefs as proof positive of my positions I will yet again (how many times is it now? <g> remind you that this is simply not the case. I have given you links, I have discussed some of the philosophical approaches I have taken, I have given you links to various other resources, I have even paid for and sent you a book that I think offers a compelling number of pieces of documented, proveable and demonstrated facts complete with footnotes and a whole host of other sources.

And yet, you persist in your patently erronous assertions that I have not given you much more than my beliefs as proof.

Who's closing their brain and eyes here Mike?

And your response is to call me names?

Sorry, you are so far off base with your assertions that I think at this point I can safely conclude Mike that you have a very closed mind and that you have made a moral choice not to believe. No one can force anyone else to believe something they choose not to believe. I wouldn't even try, but, if anyone is interested and has an open mind I'll be delighted to explain why I take the positins I do. That you choose to reject what I offer out of hand and to dismiss out of hand what I offer is, I dare say, no proof of my intellectual intransigence. Rather it seems quite the opposite to me.

Now, if you want to speak for me again in the future... Would at least give me the courtesy of checking with me first? <g>



>
>Does that answer your question, or am I missing your point?