Bash on the old geezer all you want, but he is right.

It's obvious at this point Mickey is on a personal crusade against the current Dept. Nothing he writes even whiffs at unbiased criticism, it's actually really sad.

Remember hearing a story a few years back about a first baseman for the Braves taking a medication for ADD and getting caught. In his case though he supposedly had ADD. After going on it his batting average improved. Weird how the medicine can improve your performance in sports.

The American public either

a) willingly gave away their liberties to the government in exchange for the idea that it would make them safer, or

b) was too stupid to know that their liberties were being taken from them, and/or too lazy to do anything about it.

Athiests have no "sin". Jus' sayin'.

Agree. Which begs the question of whether humans have some divine light/spark that God gave them or where did this morality come from?

Yet we can also conceive of things that we do not observe.

Dude, you're an atheist. Of course I don't expect you to think it was created. That's exactly what I'm saying! I'm describing both sides of the issue. You either have to believe God has always been here or the universe has always been here. Get it?

Truer words are seldom spoken. And if you're an atheist, you HAVE to say the same thing about the universe. It's either always been there in one form or another or something had to create it.

I am in a hurry so I apologize for being blunt. Your responses to me have been based on such a very limited concept of God/higher power/whatever that we really cannot have a discussion about it. You seem well versed in the science side, but not in the philosophical side that I am discussing. Throughout your last post you reiterated nearly everything I said incorrectly, mostly because of assumptions and preconceptions about what I must be saying. They don't reflect, however, what I am actually saying. For instance, I didn't say that if something is unpredictable than it is a sign that there is a God. What I said was nearly the opposite of that - that just because something is random does not mean that it cannot be caused by SOMETHING. And I am NOT talking about an INTERVENING God who observes and then interacts. Unless you can understand what how I can possibly be talking about a phenomenon being caused by a something without "intervening," then we cannot go anywhere with this. Like I said, we are on very different planes on this one and I don't think we can really move this discussion between ourselves. No offense intended.

If God really parted that sea, how can you differentiate that from a natural occurrence?

Like I said, science doesn't have a clue how to measure God. You can't just assume that God should prove his existence because you would or that he would have to change the laws of the universe to intervene.

It's a colossal difference between an omnipotent being proving something and mere mortals trying to find proof of an omnipotent being. An omnipotent being can do anything he wants and that includes doing nothing.

No, I didn't. I asked how WE could prove HIS existence. If the omnipotent creator of the universe felt the need to prove his existence, I'm sure it would be no problem whatsoever. Completely different thing.

What would you have to see in our world to convince you there is a God? I can't think of anything other than for God to show himself and peform miraculous feats of something and you would still have to question whether that being was some kind of really advanced alien.

First of all, I think we mostly agree, but you're making assumptions here. God doesn't have to change existing laws that he/she put in place to intervene. They could more easily use the framework that's in place. Just because God could do something, doesn't mean that's what he does.

God can't use natural processes to part seas and cause global floods?

Musgrave will get serious interest from MLB and will be drafted pretty high.

He will be looking at a NICE signing bonus. Might be very hard to turn down.

One, I know, went to the Pirates.

But having said that, I wasn't even referring to the bible. I think the Bible is hopelessly tainted with the ignorance and prejudices of the authors to ever look at most of it factually. I was referring to how you could look for evidence of an omnipotent and omnipresent being through science. You just can't do it. What would you have to see in our world to convince you there is a God? I can't think of anything other than for God to show himself and peform miraculous feats of something and you would still have to question whether that being was some kind of really advanced alien.

That's why science and God don't mix. God is for philosophy and spirtuality.

Who are you talking to? Your arguments all relate to a very simple Christian portrayal of God, and you speak as if the only alternative to being an Atheist is being a Christian. It isn't an either/or proposition. There is a huge spectrum of what people believe to be "God," and it goes well beyond the fatherly figure that intervenes in people's daily lives and let's "bad things" happen and/or chooses Super Bowl winners. Eastern philosophy portrays a very different "God" than the one you are characterizing. I used the word "intelligence" earlier to try to get away from people's preconceptions of an intervening, emotional male figure when they think of "God."

As for proving there is not a God, if that is directed at me, what I said was that you can prove a specific phenomenon is not caused by something other than just chalking it up to randomness. You can prove the lack of the existence of a cause by proving that there is another cause. In any event, I think that the people who are siding with atheism need to read more about philosophy, particularly Eastern philosophy and religion, and various beliefs in God (not organized religion) and people who are creationists need to read more about science. I am not a creationist, but I want to know more about science, which is why I reached out to Stanley.