My argument was simple. In a different post I said that man knew less than 1%. I gave a simple formula to show the less than 1% was true. Time and the actual learning curve of information is not relevant. All of your conclusions that God doesn't exist is base on ignorance. Because you lack enough information to come to the correct answer.
Wow, and I thought you were arrogant before. So let me ask you a question. If I don't have sufficient information to come to the 'correct' answer, assuming one even exists, then wouldn't the same hold true for you? You see, you're just assuming that you have enough information to come to that 'correct' answer you speak of. Yet you don't even understand it well enough to explain it except in purely rote terms, like someone repeating memorized addition tables without understanding the underlying framework. This is actually pretty common amongst people who's understanding is far deficient - they assume, in their ignorance, that they understand something much better than they actually do.
By the way, you made a bad assumption. I don't conclude that a given god doesn't exist, because there's no way to prove a negative. However, barring evidence, there's no reason to assume it does exist. In short, I don't actually care whether your god exists or not, and I also don't care about the supposed heaven or hell that believers like you claim exists. When you can produce evidence to support your claims, evidence that stands up to investigation, then there will be reason to care about your beliefs. What I care is that you're trying to present those beliefs as fact even though you don't have anything to really support them, and worse, that you're trying to entrap others with those very same beliefs.
My point with the checker board is that it doesn't contain chess pieces therefore the conclusion is that chess doesn't exist in that persons reasoning. The atheist like to use science to disprove God's existence. God is not in science therefore you cannot come to the conclusion that He exists.
You know, you should really stop trying to be so glib with your examples and analogies. It's tripping you up pretty badly.
Take your attempt to argue that someone wouldn't believe in chess. The easiest solution is simply to produce the chess pieces - which serve as evidence that the game of chess exists. Indeed, it would actually be far easier to simply go get a chess set than to waste time arguing about whether it exists or not without evidence. That's certainly what I would do.
Oh, and even better, your statement that "God is not in science". It's an easy way to try to avoid having to explain why science never turns up any evidence for your god. But the fact of the matter is that your god could very well be in science if he really wanted to, assuming he exists. It's you who's limiting your own god by declaring that he isn't in science. It's you who's limiting your god to the gaps in our knowledge, so you don't have to explain why science consistently produces results that give no indication of your god even existing.
If your god actually existed, science would point straight at him, because science would be part of him, or at least something he produced. To suggest anything else is to both limit and weaken your god, to make him more and more impotent and useless.
But, hey. If you don't mind doing that to your own god, then don't let me stop you.
Yes I believe I did. I did not talk my self into it. I was Catholic, atheist, agnostic, then Christian.
Catholics are Christians, you know. Or do you somehow think that they aren't?
Leaving that aside, you did in fact talk yourself into your new belief. That's how the human mind works - we rationalize things into a coherent framework, and if it stops being coherent, we rationalize it into something that is coherent again. That does not mean that it is correct, of course.
I like science and all the technology from it that makes our lives easier. I just thank God for it.
This from the same person who said, "God is not in science". Sorry, but if your god is not in science, then why give thanks to him for the hard work of scientists? That's like trying to take your half out of the middle; your god can't be proven by science, yet he's still responsible for everything that science produces? You don't get to have this both ways. If your god is responsible for science, then science should point straight at him. If it does not (indeed, if science can't say a thing about your god, as you claim), then giving your god thanks for what scientists produce is dishonest, because he wasn't responsible for it.
My knowledge of God is from the Bible. I agree that there are many bad teachings in the Christian church. Show me one of my incorrect thinkings and I will change my view.
Your incorrect thinking is that the Bible is a reliable source of information about your god. I'll wager that you're basing this on that verse from 2 Timothy, the one talking about scripture being God-breathed. Am I correct?
So, why then assume that your belief is correct and complete and all that? I'm quite serious here. You're treating it as if it were a divine revelation, but you don't have anything to support that except for a circular argument - the Bible is correct because it's from God, and you know that God 'breathed' it because the Bible says so.