Quote Originally Posted by Urban_Journalz View Post
The only flawed logic, is when someone clearly takes the side of what thier five senses can pick up as a determining factor between truth and falsehood. Meanwhile, even in using such faculties, they still misuse what they have, therefor misinterpreting what they experience.

Logic always equals truth. The two can't be seperated. What you mean, is that truth doesn't always = what people want to hear. Such has always been the case, which is exactly why all of The Prophets met thier first opposition from thier own nations and family members.

Your idea of, "logic" and "facts" is based on and around science. Worse, the weaker forms of science, because anyone who is familiar with Sacred Geometry will surely know that science and mathematics in itself are further proofs of His existence.

Your problem seems to be, that because God cannot be viewed under a microscope, then He must not be there. You know nothing of religion, aside from what you see on the news and in papers. If you did, you would know that in order for the spirit to be whole and at full capacity, it needs to always keep in touch with it's source. The same way bears need hibernation.

The concept of God goes well beyond concept, it's a fact. Therefore, it can't be flawed, except in the mind of someone who is too engrossed in worldly ways, that the idea of following a set order of rules disgusts them. Only the lawless deny the Law and it's Maker. Decorate your arguement as you may with all of the clever wordplay you will, not everyone is fooled by it.

You say this, "concept" is manufactured, yet you bring no proof. You want people to take your opinion as fact. I brought forth Sacred Geometry as a testimony to God's manifestation in one of our most well known (and worshipped) sciences. What do you have?

Actually, following your whims and desires, going after worldly things, material possessions, money, other people is spiritual weakness in it's truest essence. This leads to depression, and worse in some cases.

Actually, you're not wrong for not having this knowledge, you're wrong for choosing not to have it. But please, don't make the fatal mistake of thinking that I actually care about you or your condition, all I'm saying is that your arguement is very weak.
the open question is this:

from a rational standpoint, how would one ever distinguish between a God who allegedly exists, but cannot be "detected" via human reasoning or logic, versus the counter argument that there is no god in the first place?

what would be the definitive marker/reference point by which to objectively gauge an answer to the above question? (by objctive, im talking about not something that requires any prerequisite emotional stance).

This issue all boils down to the concept of falsifiability. A rational stance is one in which there exists concrete falsifiability. Meaning that it has a definite and noticeable way in which to be proven false.

For example, if someone holds a stance that their is no justifiable reason to believe in the concept of a "god", they can argue that their stance is rational simply because it has the definite potential to be proven false in an observable way! (for example, demonstrated evidence supporting a supernatural realm of some sort that cant be explained through normal rational thought would falsify a stance against belief in gods.).

However, I have yet to hear any falsifiability for the stance for the belief in a god or supernatural realm.

any takers?