>> The Flying Spaghetti Monster people have just as much of one as the christians have.
> Prove this please, then tell me if you believe it.

Prove that you have one, and show where it is different from the FSM argument. Of course I don't believe their argument - the whole point of their argument is that theirs is exactly as absurd as the christians'.

>> Mathematics is not about "things". Mathematics is about axioms and logical deductions.
> So when you add physical things, its not about math?!? The microphone is now yours.

When you add physical things, you are applying maths that happen to correspond to what you are doing. The maths themselves exist independently of the physical objects you are adding, however.

This is one of the great achievements of modern mathematics - to disconnect the whole field from its physical origins, and letting it stand on its own legs completely independently of any particular physical model. Please read up on the history of mathematics to learn more about this

>> Causality is a basic law of logic.
> This is getting better all the time. Prove this please, then tell me how you account for the laws of logic.

You're the one who is presupposing the laws of logic, are you not? I am merely following your lead here, arguing within your own framework of assumptions. Are you now questioning your own assumptions?

>> Are you saying that god cannot fool your senses all the time? He is omnipotent, isn't he?
> What God can do, and what He does do, as revealed in His Word, are two different things, but what does that have to do with >>24 's point that your senses fool you "all the time?"
> Do you believe this?

First, you are assuming his word does not lie. You have not presented any convincing argument why this would be so. Remember, you are the one trying to make a logical argument, and thus "I believe" is not an acceptable argument.

Second, of course I believe this. I am a physicist, and I know very well that even the everyday world is extremely different from what our senses preceive. Our senses are limited, and our mental capacity as well, and thus input from our senses is an extremely heavily filtered version of what actually goes on in the world around us. It serves its purpose for everyday activities, but to think that it is an accurate representation of reality is extremely naïve.

And third, that was not even >>24's point. I'll restate his claim in a way you may find easier to follow: "Our senses often deceive us. This is well known and well documented. Therefore, we know our senses are imperfect. Thus, we cannot trust our senses, and the possibility exists that our senses deceive us even more than we realize."

We may not know of any process by which our senses would deceive us completely, but neither do we have any guarantee that they do not, nor can we find one because we would have to use our senses to do that. I'll add that while "we", as perfectly logical philosophers, may not know of a process, you do: You have an omnipotent god who could easily do so.