[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, I would be willing to wager that if it were possible to ascertain the total number of people that are 2 standard deviations from the mean (which I think is the definition of genuis) since the 1600's or so, the number of atheists would be dwarfed by the number of those who believed in some sort of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that this is a useful point to make?

If you asked every genius since the 1600s if they agreed with General Relativity you'd get a similar answer, 'proving' geniuses believe it to be untrue [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes & No. No, I don't think the essential question can be resolved by statistical intelligence arguments. Yes, assuming my premise it is true, I think think what people thought about God in the 1600s is totally statistically relevant. Unlike your example of relativity-- I think people of the 1600's and even earlier have been giving considerable-- probably greater weight and though to this question and the essential tools for examining the question remain (at least if you buy in to ZeeJustin's premise) unchanged, namely human intellect and understanding.

I would be hard pressed to say that any of the scientific advancements of the last 400 years have made the case for "God" particularly more or less compelling. And I mean that regardless of whether you view God as a force of creation or God as an establishment of Good vs Evil.