txaq007's Inescapable Error

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
"You can "be convinced" by taking an objective look at the evidence."

Then why do you think that over 90% of the people who have IQs above 130 and know math, physics, chemistry, biology, logic, and probability, well, and who have taken an objective look, are not convinced?

[/ QUOTE ]

because conviction deals with intelligence that doesn't necessarily rest on scientific proofs, or irrefutable facts, or cold logic.

what do you get out of all of this, i wonder? are you a mathematical missionary? do you feel some moral obligation to set us all straight? are you an arrogant man who needs to prove his intellect superior? are you still trying to convince yourself that God doesn't exist and that Faith is stupid by repeating the set of facts that correspond to the criteria you've set up as sufficient proof against these things? maybe some part of you says that there is a chance you're wrong, but you can't bear to live with that possibility?

regarding the 3 statements (100% certainty, lack of 100% proof, not being close-minded):

i think it is not necessary for the poster to be 100% certain. Jesus addressed doubt in relation to Faith in many places. there is no rule or mandate that says you have to be 100% certain to be a christian. you are not 'bad' because you have doubts. faith and doubt must coexist. the existence of doubt is not a negation of faith, but rather a byproduct. faith is a working, dynamic understanding.

think about this. let's say you are playing no limit holdem. you know your opponent is pretty tight, and you've read him for a weak hand. you don't have much, but you think you can get him to fold. you don't know 100% that he will, but you have enough faith that he will fold to bet into him on the river. this is a form of faith. you are not 100% sure, but you are sure enough to act.