(March 1, 2009 at 10:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: EvidenceVsFaithIf there actually WAS evidence of God then the evidence for him would be worth believing (obviously only if the evidence was strong enough and really WAS evidence).
An oximoran in a name
If you have evidence of something, you wouldn't need to also have faith in it. Faith can only exist in something that isn't proven.
Likewise doubt and faith are co-dependant. If you had no doubt; if you were sure of something, then again, faith becomes obsolete.
Doubt needs questioning, if you don't question you don't doubt. You're sure.
To require evidence of God is therefore ridiculous. Belief in God requires faith, doubt and questioning.
Believing in God on faith - because you can't believe in him BASED on evidence - because there isn't any - isn't a good reason to believe!
Its like saying "Oh crap. There's no GOOD reason to believe in X - oh well a crappy ridiculous reason to believe that is almost certainly wrong is better than NOT believing in X".
Sounds totally idiotic to me. You might as well believe in everything ridiculous that you can possibly conjure up in your head if you believe in God. There's no real logical differences. No evidence of IPU, no evidence of FSM, no evidence of Zeus - and no evidence of God. Same - crucial - difference there.
(March 1, 2009 at 12:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If it's drivel, give a good reason why it isn't so.That's backwards. If its drivel then its drivel until someone gives a good reason that its NOT drivel. You can't prove a negative - the burden of proof is on the 'drivel believer' - or someone who suggests drivel - to show that its not drivel. Its not on anyone to show that the drivel ISN'T drivel. If its drivel then its drivel until otherwise is shown!
