I got off track.

Happens to the best of us.

You my point, really, was that the Bible, I don't think says that God existed in nothingness. It implies that he created everything we can comprehend, but it doesn't say that there weren't other things we can't comprehend that he could.

I think you meant to say that there weren't other things we can't comprehend that someone other than God created. Having just dusted off my bible, I can see that as being a valid statement. I suppose that previously I'd always interpreted that bit about the earth being "without form and void" as meaning that there was just nothingness before hand.

how do you purport to demonstrate that the story and circumstances surrounding Jesus' conception is irrefutably a falsehood?

I can't prove it irrefutably. But it seems much more likely that someone lied, or was mistaken.

Yes, it does seem much more likely that someone lied or was mistaken. But, as you've said before, just because something is unlikely does not mean that it can't happen.

There is only one person who could really know if Mary was a virgin -- Mary herself.

Yep. She's rather inconveniently dead, though.

Also note that there is at least one report of a woman becoming pregnant in the US Civil War due to a bullet passing through a man's testicle and carrying sperm into her uterus/fallopian tubes/whatever. That may well be apocryphal, but it's not totally outrageous.

Apocryphal, indeed, but no less plausible than a Holy Daddy.

So remind me again why you argue so vociferously against the possibility of a god, that he has a direct hand in things, etc, etc?

Unlikely things that occur are no longer unlikely. They are a certainty. It is easy to prove that certain people have won the lottery. There is no evidence that anyone has ever been affected by God.

But conversely, there is no evidence that *no-one* has ever been affected by God. To support your claim, you must show that each and every person on the face of the earth has never been affected by God. I only have to show that one person has been so affected. I think your task is the more monumental.

it's commonly accepted knowledge.

That's precisely my point. Just because it's commonly accepted doesn't mean that it's right at all. What I was saying is that if people feed you incorrect information, just because it was taught doesn't mean that it's so.

That's very true. But it's not true that if people feed you unverifiable information, just because it was taught doesn't mean that it is incorrect. It just means that it is unverifiable. If I tell you I have a black shirt on, there is no way for you to verify that. If I were blind, there's no way even *I* could verify that. Does that mean I'm not wearing a black shirt?

cute story

Did you question your brother? Did a voice pop into his head and tell him to turn right?

From what I understood, it was this second.

I have no explanation for this, assuming it's true.

It is.

But just because I have no explanation doesn't mean that I have to go making up imaginary people to explain it away.

Hey, *I'm* not the one that made up the imaginary guy! It's the only explanation I've ever been offered, though, so I see no reason why I shouldn't accept it until a better reason is given in its stead.

(On a side note to bring this semi-on-topic, I think the shielded computer speakers I'm listening to my empeg with are less than completely shielded... I've been watching an odd line on my monitor waver in time to the bass line coming from the empeg.)