Evidence for God from Science

Thanks

It is about your religion, your religion demands objective morality. If truth is nothing to do with popularity then why demonstrate objective truth using examples that are popular - firemen risking their lives and whatnot.
It may be the case that two contradictory ideas cannot be true at the same time but two contradictory ideas could both be a bit wrong. Clashes do not mean that one must be correct and the other false.

Don't misunderstand, I am not advocating the fallacy of the excluded middle. i think you are blending two things, that aren't directly related.
In talking about contradiction I was referring to the 'paths' to God that you mention. If you've ever flown, you know that coordinates are everything. If a pilot is off even a fraction of a degree he will miss his destination by miles. So, when someone propose that there could be many paths to God, meaning that all religions could possibly lead to salvation, they are making a fallacious assumption. Religions can not teach contradictory ideas and all lead to the correct destination. As I said before, that is a different thread.

Regarding your other comments. I don't know where to start. Your examples don't really address the crux of the issue. The point of my example was not to 'prove' OM, but to prove that people will stand on the ground of OM when it suits them. So, your examples of Gaddafi, and taliban really just don't have a thing to do with the matter. If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times, subjective interpretations and dilemas are not valid arguments against OM.

jlay wrote:... If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times, subjective interpretations and dilemas are not valid arguments against OM.

Let me add to this one more point: subjective moral interpretations and moral dilemas prove the objective truth that there is indeed a sin nature within mankind and that by our own efforts, none can earn their place in the sun thru use of subjective moral interpretations and moral dilemas to justify the denial of the Objective Standard God himself has and revealed to a lost sin nature driven humanity to expose what makes sin - sin.
-
-
-

Jlay:

If subjective interpretations and dilemmas are not valid arguments against objective morality then what do you provide beyond that for objective morality? That people stand on what you consider objective morality when it suits them and fight against it when it doesn't does not prove that it exists. Anymore than it proves socialism, freedom or democracy objectively exist.

Regarding the paths, that doesn't really work. Flying modern planes being a complicated and largely computer controlled business does not negate the idea that there are many paths one can take to get where they're going. If you've not got the correct co-ordinates, walk. The airplane analogy just shows that we create new ways to get to places - land,sea then air.

Religions could, and do, all teach different things, with many people following different paths, possibly arriving at the same places. We'll only know when we get there, or maybe you'll tell me I'm there and I won't be convinced. I think C S Lewis summed up much of what I feel is the issue with his line: “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” Why can't it be moderately important? Is it impossible that it is a little misguided on its idea of being the only way? If it's just one of many ways then it's not true or false but is still of value.

Christianity rises or falls on the resurrection. If it happened, Christianity is true. If it didn't, Christianity is false. There is no in between.

Pros, I honestly can't keep track of all the times you run off course with an analogy. Not all things between religion and air travel are analogous. It's very hard to have a meaningful conversation with someone, when they warp analogies constantly as you do to suit their own means. Yes, someone can reach a flight destination by taking different routes. But there is a caveat. And what is sad is that you miss this central truth, when you yourself state it. The fact in flight is the necessity of the correct coordinates. You state as much. Not the starting point. The fact that one can and must correct their WRONG course is an obvious oversight in your breakdown. If a pilot is headed in the wrong direction, and then inputs the correct coordinates, does it make his initial path correct? Uh no. Do two people starting at different locations still have to input the correct cordinates? Yes. There is nothing arbitrary about this. Yet, if we follow your analogy then that is the case. It logically fails. It ignores the FACT that one must possess, trust and execute an objective truth to safely reach the destination. That being the correct coordinates. I am utterly amazed that in your own post you mention the of correct coordinates, yet in the same breath ignore the objective importance in an attempt to maintain a worldview that denies OM. Simply amazing.

The fact remains that religions can not teach contradictory tenets and yet all lead to the truth. That doesn't mean that different religions can't be right about certain things. And as you point out, it doesn't mean they can't both be wrong. No one is saying that. But that doesn't answer the ultimate question.

That people stand on what you consider objective morality when it suits them and fight against it when it doesn't does not prove that it exists.

Do you understand what I am saying by this?

It would be insane for you to say, "That people stand on 'what you consider' the law of gravity when it suits them....." Gravity is. That is an objective fact. Even though it is objectively true, did you know that science says you can't prove it? Is there evidence for it? Yes. But you can't prove it, at least not in that sense. So, your question (which I think you already know) is a red herring. But how insane would it be to deny gravity to a physicist on the grounds you state above. I'd like to see you consistently apply this logic while standing on the edge of a 1,000 foot cliff. Yet that is exactly what you are doing. Every day you are being pushed one step closer to the edge of life. You will have to jump. It's an objective truth. Yet, you say there is no such thing. The God of this universe has even directed your path into an on-line dicussion forum where you hear the truth. And within this truth is offered to you a means of survival. A parachute if you will. God says your life has inherent value. You deny it. But you sure don't argue like your life is arbitrary. You argue like your point of view matters. And in doing so you mock the God who says you are truly valuable. And just in the time you've read this, you've been pushed even closer to death. But oh well, what does it matter. There is no value in being right. No value in being non-contradictory. No value in being valued.

I'm not sure how you wish me to respond to your analogies. I state there are many path to get where we're going and you use the analogy of a plane needing co-ordinates to get to its destination, It doesn't make much sense to me. Yes, there are complicated and precise ways of getting places but one can still wander around lost and stumble upon that place. Your flight analogy only demonstrates that a flight path is yet another, albeit complicated, method of getting somewhere. As we're living on a rough sphere you could fly in the complete opposite direction and still get there, you have to be almost exactly wrong though, anything else would take an age. Even sticking with airtravel as the only mode of travel for the purposes of the analogy one only need to look at different air companies to see the variety of routes on offer to reach a particular destination. I can't help but take these views on your analogies, they seem to prove your argument when left alone but support mine when applied to situations. You take the statements of others to logical extremes to disprove them and expect your analogies to be kept in a vacuum.

The paths analogy does not work as you are speaking of a destination which can only be accessed by dying and differs from all other destinations in that it has only one way to approach it. The analogy of the path breaks down when one is asked to imagine a path that leads where no other paths can. It appears I have to imagine a path that is unlike any other path, which is tough.

The fact remains that religions can not teach contradictory tenets and yet all lead to the truth

Why not? if God/Brahman/enlightenment/Allah/science/philosophy/mathematics are different human takes on the truth and means for humans to approach the truth why can't they all lead some there despite people on the journey claiming only they are on the correct course? As I mentioned before flying in completely opposite directions will end in a meeting at the same point. Faith that you are on the right track for you is one thing, faith that your track is the only worthwhile track for anyone is another thing altogether. They may vary or contradict each other in explanations or interpretations but that may mean that they've all set the wrong course and are thus all making different adjustments.

It would be insane for you to say, "That people stand on 'what you consider' the law of gravity when it suits them....." Gravity is.

I must be insane then. I presume you're talking about Newton's law of gravity here, physicists use it when it suits them and abandon it when it doesn't. It's a law we've broken and can't yet fix. I'd consider Newtons law of gravity when considering jumping off a cliff, it's pretty well suited to that kind of thing. Being consistent with the law of gravity would not be just invoking it when considering what would happen if I jumped off a cliff, being consistent would be using it when it ceases to make accurate predictions as has been shown, using Newton's theory of gravity to explain masses traveling close to the speed of light would be consistent. Gravity is an ever changing explanation for the results of physics experiments. Saying gravity is doesn't hold much value in my estimation, if you've got theory a of gravity that some experts in the field find intriguing I'm all ears, otherwise you're just claiming that an English term first coined in the 16th century objectively exists.

Gravity is. That is an objective fact. Even though it is objectively true, did you know that science says you can't prove it? Is there evidence for it? Yes. But you can't prove it, at least not in that sense.

No you can't prove it. Again we're simply back to you stating objective truth.
Could you expand on little on what you mean by the terms 'gravity' and 'is'.
My favourite theory of gravity was one a Christian presented to me, it's the scientific attempt to describe love, the subtle but strong universal bonding force, that which brings us together.

The God of this universe has even directed your path into an on-line dicussion forum where you hear the truth.

Works both ways J.

Byblos wrote:Christianity rises or falls on the resurrection. If it happened, Christianity is true. If it didn't, Christianity is false. There is no in between.

I see quite a bit of in between. The reality of the resurrection is not the big question, God has raised others from death. the big question is if Christianity can get you where you want to be. If the resurrection didn't happen but God deems belief in it and Jesus enough to get you where you want to be then job done.
Personally the Ascension stands out more than the resurrection. If Jesus was the one true son of God and only through him etc.... would a virgin birth and an ascension not be enough? It seems to me the focus is on the resurection not as it is the more amazing of the three but as it is the best documented.

As I've said before whilst not being convinced that these events happened, if they did that makes Jesus special. The resurrection does not prove Christianity to be true, it proves that resurrection is possible. Jesus rising from the dead does not prove that the Bible is the word of God. It proves that someone lived after death.

Proinsias wrote:The resurrection does not prove Christianity to be true, it proves that resurrection is possible. Jesus rising from the dead does not prove that the Bible is the word of God. It proves that someone lived after death.

And the argument goes that God raising Jesus from the dead is the best explanation of his postmortem appearances.

If Christ's resurrection doesn't prove Christianity, I think the following claims are reasonable:

Being attached to the Earth doesn't prove gravity, it just shows that people can be attached to the earth.
Seeing Bacteria under a microscope doesn't prove bacteria exist, it just shows that microscopes might sometimes show us things that we think are bacteria.
Our observance of the passage of time doesn't mean that time exists, it just shows that we think we observe that time exists.
Our observance of matter doesn't prove that matter exists, it just shows that we think we observe matter exist.

The point is - if you are going to apply the same level of skepticism that you apply to Christianity to anything else, you just look silly. By saying what you've said - there is no evidence that is good enough for you. If God came personally to you and declared His existence, you'd claim that it was a dream, you were seeing things, or someone was using some advanced technology to make you think you were seeing God. Yet, you don't have that same level of skepticism towards your day to day life I'm sure.

I don't like this unequal treatment... it leads to unfair conclusions.

Even sticking with airt avel as the only mode of travel for the purposes of the analogy one only need to look at different air companies to see the variety of routes on offer to reach a particular destination.

Pros. I don't know if your inability to understand the use of analogy is willful ignorance or just a fundemental difference in how you reason. Let me repeat, the use of analogy does not mean that all things are analogous. The simple truth is the necessity of coordinates. That is an objective truth. The fact that you start talking about different airlines only demonstrates my complaint. My Grandfather was a WWII pilot and crash landed in Fiji due to a navigational error. so, if you think that luck is a proper navigational tool, then please don't take up flying. I assure you, you will perish.

Why not? if God/Brahman/enlightenment/Allah/science/philosophy/mathematics are different human takes on the truth and means for humans to approach the truth why can't they all lead some there despite people on the journey claiming only they are on the correct course?

I'm not sure we are discussing the same thing here.You are lumping in some things here and I'm not sure why. I would hardly look at Math and religion as just different takes on truth. Law of non-contradiction. Christianity is exclusive. Many other religions are as well. So, if Christianity is true then other religions are false and lead to death and judgment. If Christianity and other religions all lead to eternal life, then eternal life is arbitrary. Nothing is wrong, nothing is right. It's self-defeating.

I presume you're talking about Newton's law of gravity here, physicists use it when it suits them and abandon it when it doesn't.

??
Newtonian physics is an attempt to understand an objective reality we call gravity. Gravity existed before Newton. This shows me a fundemental issue with your logic.

The resurrection does not prove Christianity to be true, it proves that resurrection is possible.

This statement proves that you have prepared yourself to be unconvinced by any evidence. You claim to want proof, but have postured yourself in a way that permits no way. Red herring.

animals do not have the corruption of the devil in their souls as we do

Loving the dialogue, guys. This is sure to end only in stalemate. We objectivists can see 'truths' because we have rational grounds to do so. The subjectivist cannot
provide the preconditions of moral absolutes so he has to deny them. This is not to say that Pro and others are absoloutely ( ) conscious of this factor; indeed, I believe Pro is completely confident of his position - or at least confident that the objectivists' position is not as safe as we like to think.

Secondly, for Pro, there isn't necessarily a 'final destination'...and if there is, then why would Almighty God offer up only one path to it.

A stalemate indeed.

Pro, if I've misrepresented you then I do apologise, and please admonish me immediately.

God Bless one and all

jlay:
It think it's pretty clear we both have different internal logic and reason, I believe most people do. You're tapping into objective reality and I'm creating my own little system which works for me and often chimes in with that of others, which is nice.The necessity of co-ordinates being an objective fact seems rather silly to me, it's a useful tool for flying when using busy airspaces or traveling large distances. A pilot can fly the over the Channel from the UK to France, on a nice day, on sight alone but of course that is not what you meant - you were talking about co-ordiantes being necessary on flights were co-ordinates are very difficult to do without. It's akin to saying you can't drive anywhere without a satnav and a postal code admittedly a little more extreme but hardly objective. Sorry to hear about your grandfather's plane but mine made it from Poland to Scotland during the war without coordinates, a good deal of it was spent lost on foot. The analogy only works if we imagine no other paths to a destination aside from a coordinated flight path, this to me is rather removed from reality and thus renders the analogy rather pointless. If we imagine Christianity as a well coordinated flight path to a destination it may be seen as a reliable, efficient and popular one but not the only way to get there. Imagine a plane being the only way to get somewhere is a sort of awkward prerequisite of the analogy.
If British Airways claim they are the only way to travel, we don't believe them wholeheartedly or ditch them completely. There is a middleground, they provide one method of getting places complete with some exaggerated claims.

* co-ordinates or coordinates? hmmm....not sure

Lumping maths and religion, I would also add art, together as different ways humans try to interpret what they experience seems natural to me. Newtons Law of gravity is no more an objective statement than Michelangelo's David. We've been through this many times, you view mathematics and science as means of uncovering the objective truth, I tend to lean towards them being human creations which are within certain parameters useful tools.

It does keep coming back to Christianity being true or false. This is also applied other religions. Again there seems little scope for partial truth or useful but not biding ideas. There seems little leeway in your mind for Christianity to be perhaps on the right track but with some rather inflated notions of exclusivity.

If Christianity and other religions all lead to eternal life, then eternal life is arbitrary. Nothing is wrong, nothing is right. It's self-defeating.

I was under the impression that no matter what religion you followed Christianity would grant you eternal life, it's just that it teaches the afterlife will be more of a binary affair than this one. If there is an objective moral judge perhaps you will be judged accordingly and no weight will be given to what you truly feel in your heart or your opinions on events in the middle east around 2000 years ago, you will be judged on your actions and the fruits of them and how they relate to the opinion of the objective moral judge. The objective moral judge may have the power to bestow sentencing beyond ticking a box for heaven or hell. Something more akin to samsara and karma, a tailor made solution neither objectively good or bad, nor eternal.
On the off chance we do create our own reality then there is not much to stop you hanging out with Jesus for all eternity in a logically consistent framework which is objectively convincing whist others run on the wheel of samsara until they attain enlightenment and can choose to depart the wheel or remain to aid others.
Perhaps you'll land in an afterlife that doesn't appear to be eternal or particularly good or bad, just different. You would have been wrong but things seem pretty much ok.

jlay wrote:This shows me a fundemental issue with your logic.

It shows me a difference in logic, but as always a different point of view than that which you hold is an issue and an opportunity to convert the other view to yours, there will be no middleground or compromise, to give even an inch would see your world dissolve to beating your head on the sidewalk. I accept you may be correct but I'm not about to make it the central focus of my life based on it being blindingly obvious and logical to you.

The resurrection does not prove Christianity to be true, it proves that resurrection is possible.

This statement proves that you have prepared yourself to be unconvinced by any evidence. You claim to want proof, but have postured yourself in a way that permits no way. Red herring.

Perhaps I have asked for proof of the resurrection but I do not recall doing so. Personally I imagine any relationship with Jesus for me would start with the heart and the living Jesus, not conviction in the weighing up of 2000 year old reports. Perhaps these convictions would run from there but my own religious path has more been one of the heart than an episode of CSI.
I do feel an affinity with the divine and don't have an issue with the miraculous. Miraculous happenings within the Judeo-Christian framework does not for me validate the entire Judeo-Christian framework. I'm not against the resurrection I just don't hold the binary view of belief in it =good experience for eternity and non-belief=bad experience for eternity.

DannyM wrote:or at least confident that the objectivists' position is not as safe as we like to think.

Hi Danny, thanks for dropping by. Rather nicely put.

*mini edit after posting*

This is a LONG Post...

Pros, your clear demonstration of bouncing all over the moral spectrum proves objectively that subjective morality needs divine intervention insertion of objective standards to the human race lost in a sea of moral subjectivism. In doing so, such divine intervention would convict human beings as unable to keep any moral codes they devise as that is the intent of the insertion of objective moral standards.

Objective Moral standards expose two main things about human nature. First it exposes how human beings twist objective moral standards to suit human subjective moral whims in order to justify human behavior. Secondly, such expose how humankind creates human works based systems of religion that can manipulate any possible objective moral standard violation towards one’s personal advantage where they call the shots in place of God.. You, my friend demonstrate this ability unequivocally.

No Human being would or could create objective moral standards whose purpose was to expose how people bend the rules and make grey out of black and white. Nor would any human based religious system devised by mankind say that only God can save a person by His own personal divine work alone, needing no help from man or by man at all. Out of all the world’s religions, only Christianity teaches that by the works of the Law (Moral Standards) no flesh will be justified. As it is written:

Romans 3:20, "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

And that human nature creates its own subjective standards and that those creating them cannot even live by them. Again as it is written:

Romans 2:14, 15, "...for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them…" NKJV

Christianity alone teaches that God imposed Objective Moral standards to teach what is correct from what is false and in doing so, expose that human beings, due to their proven disobedient nature, will change laws to justify one’s disobedient nature. Christianity shows that we need God's help alone, and through his help alone, to be saved from twisting objective morals into works based subjective morals which are dangled about in an attempt to absolve human disobedience thru twisting of all objective morals into subjective morality. Again as it is recorded:

Romans 8:3, 4, "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." NKJV

Christianity was not invented by man, how could it? Now if it was, it would teach and be like the rest of the world's religions which are all based solely upon human effort, human ideas, human philosophy, human induced meditation, to deny the one Objective Moral and the One Objective truth that only an seeing but blind, a hearing but deaf person, like yourself tries to deny - what is that you ask?

Human Beings are naturally disobedient. Fact is, human beings are disobedient – that is an objective truth. Disobedient to whom you ask? To God would be the answer – how you ask? Ignoring him, not believing him, denying him, relying on one’s own subjective morals and efforts to lessen disobedience towards others, self, god, by balancing it with good works to cancel the bad we do. And yes, even denying the very objective moral standards by which God lives by. These are just a few examples of how people remain defiantly disobedient towards God and what objective morality exposes.

No human being would devise a religion that exposes their defiant disobedience and then teach that God will do the work himself to cure this defiance. He may to a degree admit he is defiantly disobedient to God but that is far as he goes. Instead he will fall back on relying on human effort to earn favor, or prove one worthy, justify self effort, debasement, etc, spun around subjective moral codes made by mankind, thus, never trusting God alone, his work alone, to redeem, is, well, just denied.

Objective morality that comes only from a divine objectively moral divine being can cure this by exposing disobedience (defiance) within a person so that they rely not on themselves and what they can do, but instead rely on only what God can do. Because what human beings rely on is subjective moral law which gives them wiggle room to remain as they are, disobedient, unbelieving, defiant, and rebellious towards a divine being who is smart enough to expose human disobedience, rebellion, and unbelief through his own act and works alone. Done in order to restore a person who recognizes this and abandon those who will not. Fair is fair.

The Objective Moral Standard of Equity that such a divine being has in himself is revealed in this objective truth: He designed us with the ability to reason – make choices and as such, the choices we make will either solidify our disobedience or set us free from our tinkering with subjective moral laws that we cannot live up to due to the fact that subjective morality always leads to mob rule.

The fact that we can make choices demonstrates God’s objective standard of Equity as existent as well as God respecting our choices also proves equity. What one sows – they reap. How fair is that? Someone defiant towards God, like yourself, God would respect your choice of that defiance and will not permit you into heaven because you proven how you deny God now – so would you do so eternally, setting up your own subjective morals pitting them against God constantly (as you so do now). Isaiah 26:10 speaks of this very principle.

Subjective morality seeks to slay all equity as it prevents choice to trust in God alone for salvation in exchange for the subjective whims and works of man, which turns Eden’s Paradise into a living nightmare of disobedient defiant people shaping their worlds to whatever whim they desire… then someone comes takes your country, family, your life away to establish their brand of subjective mob rule over you. The freedom you think you have is taken away by the very nature of subjective morality.

You know, it is easier to control a populace by applying evolving fear based subjective moral laws than by applying one objective standard Jesus set forth in Mat 22:36, 37, 38, 39, 40 – Love God - So one can actually love others… Hear that? You can love others to a degree, but to love God and really love others? Objective moral standards as this shows that we do not live according to these standards no matter how we try to spin our subjective moral codes to say otherwise. Do you love God or deny him? From your words and circumventious logic, you deny.

Humanity is incapable of designing objective morality that exposes sin, proves how defiant and disobedient we are beyond all reasonable doubt, then causes us to rely on the moral Law Giver himself, God’s own personal works and deeds done alone to redeem us from the cost of defiant disobedience and the wrath to come.

Eph 5:6. “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” NKJV

In fact, all the world’s religions, except Christianity, rely and teach that man alone must work, earn, pay some price, make a deal, and earn some form of salvation benefit by their own merits. This in and of itself is revealing marking out of the crowd only one clear different path that is different than all the rest exposing the defiant disobedience in our heart towards what God did for us and our need for him to save us as it is recorded:

Eph 2:8 , 9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

Who do you love? People can say that they love their neighbor as themselves only to a degree and no more. They call it the golden rule but still break it every day. But to say they Love God with all their heart, strength, soul – NO much easier to deny and devise subjective moral codes to live by and control, than love God…

Objective moral standards are real. They expose who we love, what we love, and why we love, how little we really do love, exposing how we deny God, and all his better ways.
-
-
-

If you honestly think that there is no objective truth then please send me all your money. Because if 2+2=4 isn't objectively true, then the tokens we use to represent these values are arbitrary. Pros walks into a bank, ask to withdraw $1,000. The banker says,' you only have $10.' He says, "That's true for you but not for me." Or, someone robs him at gunpoint. "Give me your money." "But that's not right," says Pros. "that may be for you but not for me, says the robber."

Again Pros, I don't believe for one minute that you consistently live by the tenets you state. Based on what you state it seems clear that you have contructed your own philosophy that works for you. You said as much. It doesn't matter if you are consistent, arbitrary or contradictory. Yet within that framework you also have no reason to refute Christianity and its exclusitivity. On what grounds can you say that all religions might lead to the same place? If they do, then that is an objective truth. And if objective truth exists, then so does the law of non-contradiciton. And therefore it doesn't hold up.

It shows me a difference in logic, but as always a different point of view than that which you hold is an issue and an opportunity to convert the other view to yours, there will be no middleground or compromise, to give even an inch would see your world dissolve to beating your head on the sidewalk. I accept you may be correct but I'm not about to make it the central focus of my life based on it being blindingly obvious and logical to you.

First, do you even understand what is being said by the term beating your head on the sidewalk? It means that, based on your logic, that beating one's head on the wall would be as productive. It's an expression of futility. Like when someone says, "I'm hungry enough to eat a house." That isn't a literal request for dinner. I think even you would agree that for us to communicate in this forum that the tokens we click on the keyboard have to be attached to actual meaning. I coudn't just randomly peck and expect to communicate a cogent thought. the tokens themselves are subjective. As we can see by many languages. I can communicate the same thing in a variety of languages. Now in your logic you would say, see there are many paths. But this isn't the reality. It ignores the message. The fact that I can communicate the SAME thing demonstrates that there is an objective truth to this communication, despite the subjective methods of delivery. Otherwise "SAME" isn't.
As I stated, death in an objective reality. That isn't "my view," it is as sure as you are reading this right now. If you accept that I may be correct, then you must also accept that there is a right logic and that you are in error by not applying it.

It's obviously futitle to argue about analogies, because you refuse to acknowledge that there is a proper way to reason and communicate with analogy. In your construct, you can just make up your own rules, and so you can't even see your own faults. You say you flew without the coordianates. No. You flew without the aid of advanced navigation. If your intention was to get to Scotland, you had a coordinate. And by what standard were you "lost?'

The analogy only works if we imagine no other paths to a destination aside from a coordinated flight path, this to me is rather removed from reality and thus renders the analogy rather pointless.

The analogy works fine when we understand analogies, and not all things being compared are analogous. it is ridiculous to assume that all things regarding religion and flight are analogous. But you stubbornly refuse to concede this.

We've been through this many times, you view mathematics and science as means of uncovering the objective truth, I tend to lean towards them being human creations which are within certain parameters useful tools.

think of it this way. Does reality begin when the human mind discovers it? There are places right now on the earth and in the universe that exist. yet no person has ever seen them. Now it would appear that your reality says that these places only exist subjectively. That perhaps they don't even exist until we discover them.
See you are blurring the line between objective existence and the human mehtods to uncover that reality. Newton is not gravity. Gravity is gravity. Newton simply attempted to develop a method to understand something that objectively exists. Yet, you seem incabable of seperating these. Science is a method. A method used to understand what is. If gravity wasn't objective then we would have no grounds to critique. Saying scientists use Newton's ideas as it suits them completely overlooks that gravity is gravity.

There seems little leeway in your mind for Christianity to be perhaps on the right track but with some rather inflated notions of exclusivity.

That's because you refuse to acknowledge the law of non-contradiction. It is self-evident law of logic.

In rejecting this, you would have been just as well to have typed random nonsense than to attempt a cogent reply. Or, beat one's head against the wall.