Journeyman

Well, at least you admit you are using a fallacious argumentation technique. Since you insist on insulting my intelligence and reducing my arguments to the absurd without agreement from me, there's little point in my continuing to converse with you.

Oh stop it! Now you're just being contrary for the sake of it. The possibility for negative proofs is a fundamental part of the scientific method, specifically the requirement that to be scientific a hypothesis must be falsifiable. Yes, you can have evidence of absence. For example, if I have a box that contains nothing, I can say I have evidence for the absence of a large rhinocerous in the box. In fact, I have so much evidence for the absence of a large rhinocerous in the box that I can safely conclude that there is no large rhinocerous in the box, even if someone else originally told me one was there and the box is marked "DANGER! LARGE RHINOCEROUS!". All I needed to do to be sure was look, although I could have weighed the box as a second-best experiment. You seem to be unable to get this, but there is a fundamental difference between god/higher power and elves, gremlins and the like. The question of the existence of a creator of the universe arises from the existence of the universe itself. No-one needs to tell you about God for you to think that the universe might have a creator. Elves, goblins, santa and the like are all lies or misconceptions, rooted entirely in the existence of humans, not the universe. You cannot believe they exist until someone tells you about them or you make them up yourself. What made you think I was posting links to prove my points? I posted the links so you and others could go do some background reading on the subjects. I'm not talking about the name of the theory, I'm talking about the cosmic expansion theory itself and using the common name to help you understand what I mean. Fred Hoyle coined the term "big bang" but the theory was around before then - as you point out, at least since the work of Hubble. However, Einstein was theorising about the flexibility of space/time before Hubble's observations - hence his "cosmological constant" and other things. Predating Einstein, the idea of an explosive origin is an aspect of the cosmogony of some ancient religions. Does Fred Hoyle naming a theory denote the beginning in time of that theory? I don't think so.

I accept that, but we do not always know from precisely whence came our hypothetical information. Humans have imagination and creativity in addition to reason as natural tools. That is certainly the expected method for a science professional to follow, as I believe most do. I am not so sure even the professionals are always keen to ditch their pet thories when "contrary evidence comes along" but, on the whole and by design, the scientific knowledge system does align itself with truth over time. I beg to differ. The idea of a big bang was around long before anyone discovered any evidence to support it. Even when supporting evidence was discovered (the galactic Doppler shifts, for instance) there were still eminent scientists (such as Fred Hoyle) who rejected the theory. Then general acceptance is utterly wrong. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", as Carl Sagan wrote in "The Demon-haunted World". I'm not able to argue with that logic. The search for elves, santa and the like can stop when the people who originally lied to us about their existence come clean. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if you deny science its faith, you deny it humanity, and I think that would make science less beneficial. People sometimes need faith just to keep going on what may appear to be a futile or thankless task.

Duh! Christian or not, the Bible is still the Bible. It may be a vital source of information for you, it may not. But then, that is also true of pizza delivery flyers. Perhaps because one is gathering evidence, and the current absense could easily be explained by a lack of skill or insight on the part of the gatherer. Belief in the outcome is necessary to fuel the process of evidence gathering. That is science. For instance, where did the "Big Bang" theory come from, prior to evidence having been gathered, if not some strong initial belief that it might be a valid way to view the universal origin? Correct, but that does not prohibit us from seeking to determine the structure of the universe. It's a hobby of mine. Utterly pointless exercise, but I enjoy it.

I cannot decide if he suffered or not. His last words change according to the Gospel account. I'm using the Jerusalem Bible. Matthew 27:46-47 and Mark 15:34: "My God, my God, why have you deserted me?" Luke 23:46 "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit". John 19:28-30 "I am thirsty." "It is accomplished." Thirst is human.

This is where your choice comes in. Who told you that a good place to search for the One is in a book, any book? Do you think you will find the ultimate creative force behind the universe in a book, or somewhere else?

Something tickles you about theologisms? Likewise

No, that is absolutely wrong. Jesus is reported to have said "If I testify to myself, it is not true." Jesus could not verify being the son of God - others had to press that claim on his behalf. John the Baptist, at first, then the disciples. I agree. If Jesus was the Son of God, then his sacrifice was tantamount to saying "This place sucks. Screw you guys, I'm going home!" I always thought that the Son of God would prefer life and continued good works to death, no matter what good that death may bring. That said, at the time of Jesus, it wasn't entirely up to him - many people wanted him dead to shut him up, and they got their way, for a while.

Yes. The "Garden of Eden", "Adam" and "Eve" are myths, being a single, specific explanation of the origins of the world without any eye-witness testimony to back it up. "Original sin" is a cultish interpretation of that myth. People may believe in myths but that does not mean the other things they believe are not real. If you were persuaded that the primitive, cultish interpretations of the One were false, could you believe?

Well, almost. The One sacrificed itself for our sins. It was the free choice of the One to do that - there was no compulsion as I recall. That is my point. I, like the One, love all living things and would be prepared to do even more than the One did to ensure their salvation. Is that possible? You will be relieved to know that I do not require your word. The One's duty is done, that is true, yet the world still suffers, so more must be done. Who is willing to do more than the One for the final salvation of all?

Not while the magic box in the corner continues to market other people's countries as being so abundant that they can afford to throw food away.

What about wishing more? Does it happen that some people, when seeking in the Good Book, find and understand God in a way that is deeper, closer and more personal than that of others? Can someone have a relationship with God that is not just "beyond belief" but really, really beyond belief, even to you?

Is arguing with racists more important than intellectual discussion about immigration?

That'll be the "Protestant work ethic".

You have a sufficiently different religion and culture that, when added to centuries of bad press and folklore, makes people wary of you, even though you're probably completely harmless. I'm sorry you are still suffering this kind of prejudice although I guess you accept it as part of the calling. But, of course, you'll have the last laugh. I take it you are required to cast a "sanctifying" or "cleansing" spell when you leave a dwelling. Be careful not to make any... mistakes.