[Helm]

My position is that an all-powerful, omnipresent eternal god cannot logically exist (the law of exclusion of the middle for example voids the possibility of allpowerfulness, as demostrated by the 'rock that cannot lift' sophism). Final terms create logical fallacy that has to be taken into account.

I do not deny the possibility of higher intelligence or beings that could be substantially stronger than us, but I deny myself the baseness to attribute divine nature to any such. I am an agnostic, meaning that I do not know either how the universe became, or if it was by someone's (divine or otherwise) design. I look to science to provide clues to the origin of the world, and philosophers to present theories as to the design behind it. I am critical of both and I have no agenda other than the persual of truth. But I do oppose those that have the audacity to claim their 'god' is logically the one true god because simply the concept of (at least the judeochristian god, but any allpowerful, eternal god applies) god topples over under logical inspection. I think of faith, as Achimp put it once, as intellectual bankruptcy, but I see it as anyone's right to have their personal faith, even as misguided I might find it. But to have someone claim that by logic his god is the true right one, that's just shoving it right down my throat and I don't like it.

If Sethomas said something in the lines of "God exists 'cause I feel him deep inside when I am at prayer" eventhough there's a rebuttal to that too, I'd hardly consider it worth the effort to challenge his faith. But to claim in a pseudo-epistemological manner that god exists, just is too objective a claim not to challenge. Because if it was the former scenario, it might as well be true for him, but not to anybody else that presumably doesn't feel said god in prayer. But in the latter scenario, if it's true for him, it's true for everybody (that stands by reason) and that just begs for further scrutiny.