The problem is that your Church and your teachers have imbued you with medieval propaganda by the Scholastics (propaganda de fidei).
The Scholastics had not experienced the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, and so had no knowledge of evidence and inductive reason.
If they were alive today, they would not be teaching deductive medieval theology.
And here we are today in the 21st century and you are trying to involve me in a deductive, scholastic argument in order to prove me wrong.
In fact you are engaging in naive proselytizing and it's not working.
Frankly, if I were you I would go back to your teachers and ask them why they taught you medieval theology in the 21st century.
I know why they taught you medieval theology. It is because they think it is plausible. But it is only plausible to the naive.
So your teachers are intellectually exploiting you.
You have thrown around a lot labels and descriptions, but again you fail to explain any of them by way of reason.
And if you are not subject to reasoned explanation, how can you anyone truly know that you even have an understanding that isn't just vanity masquerading as understanding? Will you ignore this concern a third time??? Because you have offered no testimony that shows you should be above this concern! Your implied taunting which frame my ideas as false because they haven't kept up with the times is not a legitimate tactic of anything other than VANITY. Please will you explain your philosophy, or is it too embarrassing to articulate, I have laid mine to bear, why can't you do the same?
In summation: [and please don't respond to my summation if you don't first deal with the above contention, because this summation requires a spiritual mind to understand it- so presumably you will disagree, and if you wish to assert the stance you prefer, you will only be able to accomplish this by answering my rationale for this summation (found above);- alternatively you may answer the summation with my regard if you provide reasoned explanation for your averments, but something tells me since you haven't been able to explain (as opposed to just describing) any of your prior counter-claims, you aren't likely to start engaging with the following charge when you have avoided rebutting any of its constituent elements.]
With science as your epidemiological grounding, you do realize nothing you say or do can ever be believed on. Because inductive reasoning can never escape the possibility of falsification: so I hope you are content to live in a system where truth is fiction, and falsification is non-fiction.
PS: Science might be a useful engine for progress at a certain stages of development, that doesn't make it viable philosophical construct to subjugate ones logic (and reasoning) too. Scientific thought does not rule philosophy. Science rules certain models, it is not the engine that governs reality. Imagining that it is the engine that governs reality is sheer hubris.
I made this meme to express how you make me feel (can someone please inform me if this is breaking a rule)
http://i.imgur.com/0LaHwY4.jpg
[and if your wondering why I don't feel prone to my own meme: it's because I will offer explanation for my words so that others can understand, so that I might be believed on; when you aren't capable of doing the same, how can you ever hope to be preferred by any other means than pulling the wool over peoples eyes while pointing to idols of worldly authority? Who is really intellectually exploiting who when your system of belief is incapable of presenting people with a reasoned grounding that can be explained? (describing a system of belief in a fancy way that seeks to avert explanation that can really be understood is not the same as explanation that can be adopted by a real heart of understanding)]