Replies

You are asking us to accept something that collapses under its own weight - ie, "If we don't know stuff, there must be no God." Do you see the problem? Why would anyone conclude that's the end of the story? The awareness of a huge lack of knowledge begs further inquiry, not less.

You misunderstood me. I stated that I was willing to admit that my knowledge is very limited on a universal scale, and that there is a possibility that a God exists. But I asked exmarine, and yourself now, to also admit that your knowledge is equally as small and that there is distinct possibility that he does not as well. I am not making the statement that "Since we don't know stuff, God MUST not exist". You two are the ones trying to make the opposite argument into fact.

They are trying to say that if science does not use god, because it can't, so if you believe in science, you therefore must believe that god does not exist.

IT DOES NOT matter that science does NOT even ask the question whether god exists, just so long as it does not use him, therefore if we believe what science discovers, we must not believe in some supreme being.

Interesting that, but I run across that with a lot of them here. Believe in scientific discoveries, you don't believe in god, believe in god, you cannot believe in scientific discoveries, when it comes to evolution that is.

Electronics, gravity, physics, hey, no trouble, but evolution? YOU ARE AN ATHEIST!!!