There is no evidence for a "god" as is commonly understood.

Most likely universes come and go in a larger superset that is ALL.

The problem with cosmology is the scientists can only see so far and may be trapped in a topology that is closed but embedded in a superset that is not visible and only has a subset of its rules. What exists outside of our universe? Reality in uncountably infinite we know since the real numbers between 0 and 1 are such. Our monkey brain can only get that far.

The axiom is," Existence exists" It does not say that it always has and always will. Neither Aristotle not Ayn Rand said this. All these arguments about time and infinity are specious. Time is a measure of motion, and only exists in the universe, where things move. Man created time. To quote Nathaniel Branden's lecture, "Time is in the universe. The universe is not in time."

Decartes mistake. It should be "I am, therefore, I'll think."

To be is to be something... I am, therefore, by my nature, I am human. As a human I must think because to think is my only means of survival.

"You confuse man-made descriptions of God with the true God."

Robbie, what do you mean by this statement?

The Theory of Evolution does not deal in the supernatural thus it can be taught in the public schools. Yet it should be taught as a theory.

One if the few things that I disagree with Ayn Rand about is the existence of a 'creator.' The theory of evolution is completely ridiculous by scientific standards, and it boggles my mind that it is being taught to our children as fact.

Robbie, what other descriptions are there than "man-made"? Who made them? How do you know?

I think you'll ultimately have to admit that the basis of the descriptions is Hearsay.

Well said, Mr. Brenner. It is the "non-contradictory" part that is the major 'sticking' point. It seems that some want their cake after they've eaten it.

I simply do not reject the possibility that a limited God exists or could have existed.

You says that you "find no difficulty with believers who are not extremist evangelists, respect others who believe otherwise, and recognize reality as observed in this physical plane of existence as proper basis for action". A Christian who hangs out in the Gulch had better "respect others who believe otherwise, and recognize reality as observed in this physical plane of existence as proper basis for action", or else he/she won't last long here.
For any Christian, any person in fact, to hang out in the Gulch, that person must be non-contradictory. For a Christian to be non-contradictory, they should be an evangelist (last few verses of the Book of Matthew). I am guessing by your use of the word "extremist" as an adjective to evangelist that you don't want the Bible "shoved down your throat". What I laid out in my previous discussion is what Christians should say when they evangelize and only when the subject comes up as part of a relevant discussion (like this Gulch post). As with everything in the Gulch, people must come to their conclusions for themselves. Ramming any philosophy down someone else's throat is generally unsuccessful unless done by force (as has been done in both Christian and Muslim subjugation of populations throughout history).

I wanted to respond to that post, it was very thorough and you really did speak to both sides of the argument. Thank you.

I rejected religion/god at a very young age..I believe I was 7. I do have a constant thirst for knowledge however, so I will continue to investigate further.

This is an entirely reasonable response, O.A.
The massive number of people of faith could be either an argument for or against a Biblical god. Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace a common lineage to Abram (later called Abraham); this could easily be made into an argument in favor of repeated taught deception and against a Biblical god. On the other hand, if the Biblically-revealed god was a complete hoax, then a reasonable argument could be made that such faith should have died off a lot sooner than it has. I have a hard time believing that so many people could be deceived, but there have been cases of mass deception before. Hitler comes to mind.

No confusion there, I wasn't speaking about you specifically.

Unfortunately, you're not debating; I would prefer if you did. So far, you've just asserted claims to knowledge of things that contradict your only means of knowing anything.

You doubled down on that contradiction with the claim you can arrive at that 'knowledge' via a means that is Only based on human comprehension and understanding - that means being Evidence.

Human comprehension and understanding are all that is available to us. In any attempt to say Otherwise, one uses those abilities to try and explain something that negates those abilities.

You have to work out your "beliefs"; I'm just making a point regarding all of human knowledge.

; )

OK, either God exists or God doesn't exist.
But seemingly when talking about anything that includes God it could be both or neither or something else because the rules of logic and reasoning don't work anymore.

Crusaders? Seriously? Quit trying to deflect and just think for a change.

Read even just the first 2 chapters of Josh McDowell's book. There is *no* book in history that has as much internal and external supporting evidence for its accuracy and validity.

The Bible that "was" during the early Church, is the Bible that "is" today.

"knowing". Self aware? Relative to my definition, can a formula be self aware and knowing?
I suppose it might be "predicting", but is that the same?