:::::Here's one criteria that I look at for thinking through the religions. Since it's not possible for the universe to be caused by a natural being, (1) If the religion has any hope, it must be a supernatural being. That right there gets rid of a ton of "religions" where God is just an exalted man (like mormonism), or animistic religions where God is an animal or a tree, or pantheistic religions where God is one with all material things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Here's the practical thing to get out of this then. What I'm saying is that this criteria really lessens the amount of work you need to do. You now don't have to even investigate some religions simply on the basis that they don't have a supernatural deity. I realize I haven't made the case for Christianity, but I'm making the case for God. Don't worry, I'm tracking with you :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 13:17, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::True or false, which is it?
:::::# ''"If none of the creation stories on earth can be disproven"''. (1) You limited it to creation stories. We've got to take more into account than simply each particular story of creation. (2) If one religion can be proven, or at least shown most probable (perhaps telling the future and never getting it wrong), then that would at least send great doubt upon the others if not prove them wrong. <u>So I disagree with the statement that says they cannot be disproven</u>. You acknowledge yourself that "at most one can be true." Therefore, if only a max of one can be true, the others are false, and can be disproven or discredited. I've already disproven some simply by that "supernatural criteria" I gave above.
:::::# ''"you need evidence to SUPPORT the the truth of yours, otherwise yours is no more or less valid than the other creation stories."'' True! Ding, ding, ding!! You should win a prize :-). What qualifies as evidence though, in your mind? Would telling the future and never getting it wrong qualify as evidence for the bible? Even if you disagree with the bible, would you be able to at least admit, "If that were true, that is good evidence!" If that can at least come out of your lips, then we are going somewhere. :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 13:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Furthermore, your comparison to truth and beauty etc. is a flawed analogy. These are constructs of the mind. Take for instance beauty. Even the most hideous of creatures are attracted to eachother. And it's interesting that you compare the existence of god to constructs of the human mind. :) --[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 12:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::If there is a God who is by definition perfect, he is then perfectly beautiful. Taking that he is perfectly beautiful, and being the first cause, he is then the standard for what beauty should be. Anything that is not beautiful in his eyes does not have true beauty. So yes, there is a true and a false kind of beauty. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)