- Thread starter
- #341
Evidence isn't proof and you know that. You've had decades' more science study than I have. You have used inductive, not deductive reasoning, to assume that there is a God which you've justified by inducing that because the God of the Bible is reported to have created the universe, and since baryogenesis' extra matter can not currently be explained using proven theory, God must have created the extra matter. And You've assumed that the universe's fine tuning towards life isn't a probable outcome of there being multiple universes. You've also made a very generous interpretive reading of genesis ignoring that its events are too out of order even for it to be figurative.No. It's not a paraphrase at all. It's a re-writing of the definition.
We've been discussing the evidence for 10 pages; creation is the evidence, the evolution of space and time is the evidence. That you continue to make comparisons to Santa Clause and believe that is a realistic analogy is ridiculous. The only possible motivation for you making such a ridiculous comparison and re-write the definition of faith is to suit your purpose. Unfortunately it shows an incredible lack of intelligence and honesty. Arguing that belief in God is equivalent to belief in Santa Clause is not a serious argument. And if you believe it is you are a dummy. Are you a dummy?
I would redefine my 11-year-old paraphrase to "a belief in things you can't prove to be true."