Originally Posted by pigglet

actually filthy, this is kind of interesting, in terms of proof and standards of proof. 1. il is using some sort of quasi-science to try to infer the presence of God. i would think that there could be a discussion about the validity of this approach, as it seems pretty much at the heart of your thread here 2. this may also be an interesting place to flesh out this discussion concerning the easter bunny analogy / complete lack of proof of existence strongly implies probability of non-existence. will / politico and il seem to talking right past each other on this point. roachboy loves to point this situation out. it seem to me that if we talk about the conversation that was occurring above in the thread, then that pretty much brings it back on topic, no?