Speaking of interpretations though, would you say that there are some well-accepted definitions of a god of some kind that because of the way they are defined CANNOT exist?
Yes, I think so. For one thing, there is a common conception of what I call the Genie God, who gives you whatever you want if you just believe enough and pray enough, or do something else enough. I think that is pretty clear that this God does not exist, or else the number of things you have to do are so convoluted and difficult that it belies any attempts at testability. Second, a minor one is when you try to define God using all the Omni-_fill_in_the_blank_ attributes without adding any kind of caveat. That results in a lot of logical contradictions which people arguing against the Christian God love to point out, even though the problem is easily fixed by simply saying that God has all the Omni attributes that it is logical for him to have.
Those are the two that come to mind right now.
I wouldn't say that if evidence points to something and you accept it, it is accepted on faith. That sounds like the opposite of faith: believing something without evidence and even against contrary evidence, were such to reveal itself.
I've tried to explain that I consider that definition of faith as what I call "blind faith," and I find it highly problematic. I advocate a faith that is a trust that your senses are correct, or a commitment you have to someone/something (as in having good faith in someone). This is the gap that must be crossed for anyone from mere speculation into confirming beliefs; none of us can confirm with evidence that our senses are accurate, only, as you've said narrowing upon the truth.
My point is that if you have evidence for something, you have a reason to believe it. Even if the evidence is lacking in someway that does not mean that the "truth" - the fact of the matter, the absolute truth - it is narrowing upon is wrong.
Here is where we totally agree. XD I'm picky about the way statements are worded, and you just hit the nail on the head. XD
I must decry the fact that I have not read most of the new testament (what can I say, if find Paul's writing style annoying (still beat's the book of Mormon though)) - I cannot argue well on those grounds. I suppose that that answers my question somewhat though, so there.
So you've actually read the book of Mormon? That is impressive.
Paul probably does take some getting use to, but to me it is very precious... even when it takes a lot of work to understand. So, only somewhat answers your question?
