(Massive SNIP, I'll get back to the preceeding later, perhaps)
: I would not deny my faith for any new scientific finding. Right, this is pretty much what I was saying. If the preponderance of evidence is not going to be sufficient to change your mind, then the act of accumulating evidence, either for or against any proposition is meaningless.
:This is because as I have said before, in science there are no absolutes; everything can be overturned sometime in the future.
Nope, sorry, not true. Zero degrees Kelvin is an absolute, for example. The singularity that exists beyond the event-horizon of a black hole is an absolute. For that matter, the periodic table is a description of several absolutes. The velocity of light in a vacuum, the double-helix structure of DNA...there are some things, both theoretical and empirical, that can't change.
:Faith is based on Fundamental truths, it will never change.
Again, if Martin Luther did anything...heck, if Jesus did anything, it was to alter the structure and practice of the act of communing with the divine. "Faith," and even the Christian faith, has seen dramatic changes even over the past 100 years. But don't take my word for it.
(Minor snip)
: I can prove in theory that God exists.
OK, do it. I'm not being facetious, I'm dead serious. If you are able to offer me logical proof of the existence of god, and this proof does not rely on my accepting any untestable assumptions, and this proof is the most parsimonious explanation for the observed data, I will, by definition, be a believer. I warn you, it will be difficult, but I'm intrigued to see you try.
-Floyd
