the i dont know position means, i know its false

I truthfully am completely confused my what you are trying to say. Your word choice confuses me and I hope you can clarify. I will do my best with what I can discern. You say "know=sensory experience" and "belief is imaginary" You appear to believe in what we call empiricism. It means "the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. " (http://dictionary.reference.com...). It is a philosophical worldview. You determine all things are known by observation. This philosophy has been disproven though. You claim to know that all knowledge is gained only by sensory experience. But did you observe this with your senses? You cannot see the concept of "all things are known only by sensory experience". You cant even see "knowledge", it isn't something that you can see. Empiricism disproves itself. If it was true, then it would be false by its own definition because you can't observe it. Your belief in empiricism seems to be why you are making the claims you do. You use that philosophy to try to disprove religion, because faith is something that you cant observe. But faith is the basis of knowledge. You cannot observe logic, as I stated earlier. You must believe (with faith) in logic in order to try to prove anything. Yet you still believe in logic, which is contrary to empiricism. You have faith in a belief (empiricism) that denies that faith exist, then use your faith in anti-faith empiricism to attempt to disprove religion because it depends on faith. That is circular reasoning. Things can be known without seeing it. I know Australia exists, but I have never seen it. I have reasons to believe it exists. I believe you exist, although I have never seen you. But I have lots of reasons that prove that you exist. Faith is the basis of logic. I believe in Christianity because I have reasons. There is tons of scientific evidence, archeological proof, and through logical reasoning, I come to know it is true. Faith is believing in something that you can't see. It isn't believing in something for no reason. The last thing you say is -"ok here is the logic that prove you are wrong, cause and effect: anything that is created and constructed is a machine, and nature is life, my body is nature religion is false by default, as i dont know is true, thats why i can at best imagine and believe in religion" This has nothing to do with cause and effect. Cause and effect, in reality, prove God's existence. All things must have a cause. That ultimate cause is God. Something doesn't arbitrarily come from nothing. If you say God isn't that first cause, then you believe something can come from nothing, which is a very strange religion. I know what you might think about God being the first cause. "Who created God? Who caused God?" This question is easy to refute. As stated in the Bible, God is outside of time. He created time and space (which we know to be directly related thanks to Einstein). Therefore, God always existed. God cannot be created because being "created" implies time. God created time, and is therefore beyond it. It would be silly if God was bound by what he created. So it is a weak argument to try to ask for God's cause. God created cause and effect in relation to time. So trying to use cause and effect, logical reasoning, or any argument, only proves that I am correct. The correct religion can be known, because you can know something without seeing it. There are logical reasons to believe in Christianity. Atheism is a faulty belief. It believes that it doesn't have beliefs, and that God doesn't exist. And yet uses logic and science, which are only possible if God exists. You base your claims on the assumption of empiricism. But empiricism is logically flawed. I know God exists, and that Christianity is true. Without the Biblical God, we wouldn't have a basis of logic, which all people use. It is not blind faith. It is faith with reasons. Atheism is a blind faith. It uses logic, then denies the only explanation for its existence. This leads to the ideas of evolution. But evolution depends on the philosophical idea of naturalism (nature is all that exists, which leads to that logic can't exist) and uniformitarianism (all rates for all of time have always been constant and continuous, which is contrary to observational science). The religion of evolution stems from Atheism. But sadly, evolution, being a philosophical belief, denies scientific evidence, and relies on illogical philosophical beliefs . The Bible has the only correct account of origins. Carbon dating, electromagnetic field decay, and countless other scientific evidence proves the Bible and disproves evolution. The problem is the uniformitarian ideas behind evolution. It assumes the past in order to try to argue for it. If evolution was true, then fossils would support it. But the fossils show people existing for millions of years in the same way. It shows animals in where they lived, sea creatures on bottom and mammals on top. Noah's flood predicted billions of dead things covered in sediment layer down by water all over the earth. People found fossils, exactly the way people predicted. Fossils have been used to support Christianity for hundreds of years. Evolutionists use their beliefs to reinterpret fossils, and ignore what the majority of the fossil record shows. Fish and animals, that are thought to be dead millions of years ago by looking at the fossil record in the evolutionary perspective, where found to be alive today, exactly the same way as in the fossils. The earth is young. Scientific modals have shown this. Carbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is less then 50,000 years old. Evolutionists try using radiometric dating to show the earth is old. But every time it has been used on rocks that they watch form, it gives dates of millions to billions of years. The dating methods are wrong, and have even been proven by many scientists. Evolution uses historical science (science about the unobservable past), to try to explain human origins. It has been disproven by operational science (science as in the study of repeatable tests with the scientific method). Historical science is flawed because you cant see the past. You can only see the present. Therefore, certain things must be assumed when working with the past. If you assume the Bible, it is perfectly accurate with predictions. If you assume evolutionary beliefs, things contradict the Bible. That is because of the beliefs that they put in the claims. Evidence doesn't speak. People do. In 1859, a Christian scientist, using the Bible, predicted continental drift based on Noah's flood. His work was ignored for over 100 years, until people realized it was real. People are all part of one race. The Bible teaches that we are all descendants of Adam, therefore we are all biologically related and part of one race. This was shown to be true when a scientist (who was an atheist by the way) mapped the human genome and found all humans to be part of one race, THE HUMAN RACE. The Bible has been proven over and over again. Using the Biblical age of the earth, an Christian scientist determined the electromagnetic field of multiple planets in our solar system. 50 years latter, when the technology was finally available, a space probe went out and measured those planets electro magnetic field, and it was EXACTLY to the Christian scientist predictions, according to Biblical history. Also, the electromagnetic field around earth is slowly decaying, it is decaying exponentially. When traced backwards, the field has been shown by scientists to only be about 100,000 years old, at the extreme most. Before that date, it would have been so powerful that it would cause earth's oceans to evaporate form the extreme power it produced. Thus proving the earth is very young. Evolution, the biological proses in which living things evolve, has also been disproven. The proses of natural selection (the adapting of living things in which evolution depends on), in all cases, shows either no change in genetic information, or a loss of information. This is why I don't believe in evolution. Darwin's finches, antibiotic resistant DNA, and all other changes that supposedly support evolution, have all shown to add NO knew DNA into the organisms. Every single case. That is why many scientists are not evolutionists. Operational science disproves evolution, and shows only organisms losing genetic information. I'm with the scientists in genetics. I'm not going to argue with the proven science. Christian, Bible based beliefs about origins have always held up, and outdo all Atheistic beliefs. I believe in Christianity because it is logical, scientific, and correct. All of my claims can be supported with research on your part. I might not convince you, but its not my fault that you don't research what is truth and what is false. Finally, from a logic stand point, scientific standpoint, philosophical stand point, my position is proven. I know Christianity is true, and I have a reason for it. For me to not believe in it would require me to have blind faith. I can talk more about philosophical worldviews next time. Remember, empiricism is a faulty worldview. If it was true, it would be false, therefore it is false. In order to argue against my position, you can't continue to use empiricism as you have done the entire debate. You also can't use naturalism or uniformitarianism, as they are also faulty worldviews and will get your position no-where. I encourage you to research on all of the claims I have made. It would be helpful to look in literature created by Christians. I also suggest "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" by Dr. Jason Lisle. This book is about the prepositional argument which I have used in this debate, although it focuses on the evolution side more heavily. I also suggest reading a book on logic, preferably an "Introduction to Logic" book. I found it extremely helpful for defending Christianity.