Okay. So, only your beliefs are logical. No one else's.

 

Went and got himself banned, did he?

 

Yes, it appears that way

 

Gone to that great adult arcade in the sky?

 

I think the only reason he started this thread was to troll religious people anyways. Been some interesting conversation despite that though.

 

Continue on then, I didn't want to interrupt as you guys seemed deep in it but just pointing out that the op can no longer contribute. I started reading this thread when it first came out but lost interest.

 

Is that what I wrote?

 

Not what you wrote, but that's what you said.

 

No dogs to shave, pixelated titties, and lots of guys pretending to be girls without microphones.

 

People are welcome to believe whatever they like about anything. Doesn't make their beliefs correct. My guess that life exists elsewhere is just a guess, and may be incorrect. However, there are statistics you can do to say the odds are good that life exists elsewhere. I'm using logic, not faith, as the basis for that prediction. The Scientific method can then be applied and that will tell us if the prediction is correct or incorrect.

Many people can have different beliefs (unproven of course) based on logic and statistics, not just me. But a belief in god is not from following logic. It's a result of people having faith in ancient fairytales.

 

Faith has nothing to do with ancient fairy tales.

 

That is really a shame, I was hoping we could open his mind and heart up. He appears to be in need of both.

 

no doubt there is another like him due off the rack shortly... 3... 2... 1...

 

Which particular question?

 

What would you do with evidence of god?

 

I already answered that one.

 

No... you didn't. You posted a retort, that's different than an answer. Do I need to re-phrase it for you to comprehend?

 

I would be happy to answer the question, if you could be specific as to the nature of the evidence.

 

Any evidence. Be it manifestation, or two labcoats holding up a beaker that has this metaphorical evidence and shouting, "Eureka!", or anything that would pass the "requirement" to count as evidence.

 

If you have a hypothesis, and claim to have evidence that supports that hypothesis, and you have exhausted all possibility that your hypothesis could be wrong based on said evidence, you should publish your results. See if it stands up to peer review. Let others take a look at it, see if they can recreate your findings. If they can, well done, you would have made a substantial contribution to science, and therefore our understanding of the word.