> > >Archeology. Science. History...
> >
> > Are all tainted by their authors, are all constructs of our desire to find patterns, correspondences and systems of cause and effect.
>
> It's easy to say this in a philosophical debate. It proves my point. But when you come down to real life, where things actually matter, it doesn't hold up.

Indeed. That is the primary question in the debate between knowledge and faith: at what point can we call it knowledge? Does knowledge apply only to the scientific, or does it apply to the non-rational (note the distinction between "non-rational" and "irrational") as well? Can one have knowledge of something that is not scientifically provable? My general benchmark is this: if I am, of your statement, the most skeptical person in the world, and you can prove it to the point where I have no logical choice but to accept it (in the case of the burner, for example), then it is acceptable as "knowable." But if you cannot, if I am left with a counterexample or a situational denial, then it must be taken on faith. I believe the term for all those things we take on faith - such as history - is a "blik." Anything we have not experienced our selves, but have been told is true and believed is true, is a blik. Of course, my standard is not infalliable, but it is some help.

> That, in fact, is why I think philosophers like to philosophize so much. It isn't motivated so much out of a desire to think sensibly but rather a desire to legitimize any train of thought one cares to.

In many cases, you are correct. Some people just go for the idea of being able to justify anything they so desire. But there are philosophers out here (hi) who actually *are* trying to make some sense of all this absurdity.

> I submit that there is more than enough historical, scientific, and archeological evidence to make the existence of the Christian God... there *is*, however, more than enough evidence to make it beyond probable that the Christian God does, indeed, exist.

Akin to an argument we had the other day in my Philosophy of Religion class. The question was "Is it reasonable to assume that God exists?" and the answer anded up hinging on the definition of "reasonable" - does it mean provable by or acceptable to reason? Or something else? I started the debate by defining "reasonable" as meaning acceptable to reason, and our conclusion was that, yes, it is reasonable.

So we are left with three questions at the heart of this debate, and it becomes as semantic as any philosophical debate - What is meant by "reasonable?" What is meant by "God?" What is meant by "exists?" Sam has defined the first two very well - "reasonable" by my definition, and "God" to be the God of Israel, the Judeo-Christian deity. But what do we mean by "exists?"

Keep in mind that it is not possible to prove definitively either that God does or does not exist. Trying to prove it out of hand is what got Anselm, Aquinas, and all their buddies in a philosophical bind. The best we can do is and inductive leap to "it is reasonable that God exists."

Dar "Always glad to argue about the existence of God" ien