Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

So? To limit discussion to those with which we have commonality would be to limit our discussions to those who believe only what we believe. That would be a) boring, b) limiting, and c) ensure that we never challange our own conceptions.

Indeed, it is exactly what many religions encourage, in order to keep their flock from drifting


Since your wrong on the former claim, the later question is irrelevant. I hate to break it to you, but as a scientist I continually deal with, discuss and evaluate hypotheses which disagree with my own. And rather than dismissing them, I do a good job of understanding, debating, and discussing them. I even change my mind, when the data is there.

In other words, you're found yet other false excuse to avoid providing your definition of god. It is roughly the 100th such excuse you've offered up.

I can only conclude that you are either:
a) incapable of describing your beliefs, or
b) afraid to put your beliefs up for the scrutiny by others.

Quite frankly, there is no point furthering this discussion until you can either enunciate your beliefs and/or develop the courage to offer them up for discussion.

But I want to touch on one last point:


Firstly, if we take your argument at face value, it means god as you interpret it doesn't exist - otherwise you'd be able to conceptualize it in a way you could describe to us.

Secondly, the premise is false. We (well, everyone but you) can, and do, discuss concepts and ideas that are based on non-existing things all the time. One can talk about the aether, despite the fact its existence has been conclusively disproven. Indeed teaching students about the concept behind the aether is a useful tool in taking them from understanding classical waves (i.e. waves in water) to how electromagnetic waves work.

Bryan