[PDerna]

Correct about sensory evidence. We are not disagreeing on this point - quite to the contrary! I am not challenging reason at all, but affirming it's position as superior to science as a knowledge gathering tool. Certain unprovable principles must be held as axiomatic in order for science to have any validity whatsoever. But you know that.

It is the application of this same principle which leads to the kind of dishonesty when saying that, not to put words in your mouth, but when saying that you cannot believe in a Creator because you don't believe in anything that doesn't have verifiable scientific evidence. If you believe in science at all, then you already believe in a number of things that have no scientific evidence, so why not this? Note that it is necessary, because it is the best and most logical explanation for consciousness, morality, free will, etc., which exist, but cannot be verified by the physical sciences. Reason is axiomatic for science, and an intelligent Creator is axiomatic for reason, so a person's choice of one over the other is purely personal.

So...not to name names, but many posting here seem to be hiding behind a wall of science for what is, esentially, a personal choice. That is everybody's right, of course, and not without good reasons, I'm sure, but a spade should be correctly identified as a spade.

[jennyp]

Reason is axiomatic for science, and an intelligent Creator is axiomatic for reason,

Huh? Where did you show this?

I'd say that the only things that are axiomatic for reason are:

1. The evidence of our senses can basically be trusted; the world isn't trying to lie to us
2. Logic works; there are no contradictions

[PatrickHenry]

It is the application of this same principle [Certain unprovable principles must be held as axiomatic in order for science to have any validity whatsoever] which leads to the kind of dishonesty when saying that, not to put words in your mouth, but when saying that you cannot believe in a Creator because you don't believe in anything that doesn't have verifiable scientific evidence.

But you are putting words in my mouth. Worse, they are words I don't speak, or write. I have no desire to be given credit for your imaginings. The glory, or ignominy, is entirely your own.

I do, however, say that a proposition with no verifiable evidence isn't a subject for scientific concern. There is no inconsistency here. You've failed to score.

If you believe in science at all, then you already believe in a number of things that have no scientific evidence, so why not this [the Creator]?

That's the saddest example of an argument I've seen today. Maybe all week. And around here, that's sad indeed.