>So, for the last time: No, I can't disprove God's existence. So what?
>I have explained several times that, not only am I not required to,
Duly noted. The first time, this time and many times inbetween.
>but even if you could prove His existence, you still have no more
>rational, objective, logical basis for following Him than I do for
>following my own internal morality. Your argument is a house of cards.
If I could establish the existence of God (and of course that the Bible is
His written word), I would "have [a] more rational, objective, logical
basis for following Him than [Russell does] for following [his] own
internal morality" for this reason: I would have an unchanging standard for
morality articulated by an omniscient, loving God. However imperfectly I
may observe that standard, I consider imperfect observance of a fixed
standard better than imperfect observance of a standard that may change
over time. And when I do fail to meet it, if I confess and repent, the
articulator of the standard will forgive me and continue to develop me into
the individual he wants me to be. He cares more about mentoring and
developing people than he does about punishing disobedience.
Bill Hamilton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr, Ph.D. | Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems | General Motors R&D Center | Warren, MI
William_E._Hamilton@notes.gmr.com
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX) | whamilto@mich.com (home email)