DA Morgan,

'Then try getting a serious education.'

REP: As you can probably figure out from my past, I was never in a position where a serious education was a possibility. But I have spent time educating myself. And you are misled when you talk about my inability to apply Boolean logic to my thinking. I have studied analytical philosophy at college and have read widely on the subject.

It is of no use to descend to insult and sarcasm because you disagree with my conclusions.

You have demonstrated an inability to think more widely, and follow through some of my arguments to their conclusion.

I feel you are also bound within a method of thinking that prevents you from stepping outside of the narrow confines of this present paradigm.

An example - if five hundred years ago you had talked about some of the seemingly contradictory properties of matter that we know of today, you would have been dismissed, because tat that time, thinking was bound within an 'is - or' paradigm. But in fact quantum theory sometimes requires an 'is - and' approach to processing the facts.

So their thinking was at fault. It is clear to me that in some of your arguments, that you are demonstrating an equally black and white thought process.

You are a slave to your logic, and cannot open up your mind to recognise that there may be more variables in the discussion than you recognise, with your simple 'yes or no' or 'there are only three choices - pick one'.

Unfortunately for you, you are surrounded by others who think in the same terms, and therefore you are constantly reinforcing each other's method of thinking - which is a fine way to think about science, but is completely unable to - A. think that there may be anything outside of the physical processes we witness, and B. have any meaningful thought about it.

A God that allows suffering may well be subject to your Boolean logic, but your mistake is in thinking that you are in possession of all of the possible sets.

'Then try getting a serious education.'

This comment demonstrates an intellectual snobbery that is astonishing, but sadly far too prevalent.

You have also shown that you are riddled with misconceptions, misinterpretations and myth regarding what serious Christianity says about itself, and you do nothing to admit when you are mistaken, either to me or probably yourself. You just move on to the next supposed point of contention in an ever increasing circle. The minutia will allow you to debate it indefinitely.

Example - In 'Adam, Eve and Me' you accused me of believing in a God who forced two bears to rip children apart. I demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that this was not the case. You didn't even acknowledge the fact but moved straight on.

And you seem incapable of grasping the implication: You're thinking is clouded by half-truths and myth, and is emotionally driven by your hatred of all things religious.

Fair enough, it's your prerogative.