If there is no possibility of evidence EvF, as we've just established beyond reasonable doubt. You HAVE to look for some other reason to state that you don't believe.

You need to 'take your pick' amongst other possible excuses. For instance, you don't believe because you have no reason to.

Evidence is a lost cause. It's scientifically infertile; expired; dead. You're reasoning is flawed. You can't carry on repeating that infinitely because it isn't a supportable assertion. It isn't logical. It's nonsensical.

You need a reason TO believe first - not a reason NOT to believe. You've got it all backwards..

I mean - you are telling me that my reasoning is 'flawed' that it 'isn't logical' and that it is 'nonsensical' but I just simply need a rational reason to believe first - until I have one I won't.

You on the other hand seem to need a reason NOT to believe first OTHER than the fact there is no evidence OF the truth of the belief and no rational reason TO believe it. Since you can't find one you seem to think it's rational to believe by default.

That's backwards. I mean you're telling me I'M being nonsensical but if you applied that logic of yours to ALL beliefs then you'd believe in the existence of a HUGE number of ridiculous things simply because they cannot be disproven and there is no evidence AGAINST them (other than the lack of evidence, which is important but you seem to think it SUPPORTS your view somehow).

And if you AREN'T going to apply the logic of yours to ALL beliefs, and you admit there can be no evidence of God - then how on earth are you drawing the distinction between believing in HIM without evidence and yet not believing in other things without evidence? (e.g: the FSM).

You need a reason TO believe first. You need evidence OF something first. If there isn't any - the default rational position is disbelief. You don't start needing evidence AGAINST - because how can you have evidence against something if there's no evidence FOR it in the first place?

And if there's no evidence FOR it in the first place, as I said - there's no rational reason to believe.

But apparently that's nonsensical.

EvF

No EvF... I've said very many times... my position is the result of rational thought. Your position is the result of obviously flawed reason.

I'm not saying it the other way around. I'm not saying before you think about it you have a fixed belief in something... that's equally ridiculous as not believing because of a lack of evidence that's impossible to obtain.

It seems like your stuck in a position of complete lack of thought. You have no idea what the hell to think on the subject. You have no thoughts.

This backwards idea is simply a non starter. You tried but brought up another dead end.

I find it illuminating given the claim that you would change your mind given reasonable evidence, but here you stubbornly refuse to accept the truth when it smacks you in the face. You hold on to the evidence line no matter how extremely implausible it becomes. One thing this absolutely definitely ISN'T is open minded. Science is far away from your standpoint.

How can you accept something as truth if you have no way of verifying it?

(May 9, 2009 at 3:18 am)Darwinian Wrote: How can you accept something as truth if you have no way of verifying it?

Because there are more truths than scientific truth. Spiritual truth cannot be verified in the same way.

Quote:Because there are more truths than scientific truth. Spiritual truth cannot be verified in the same way.

So fantasies is truth for you?

(May 9, 2009 at 3:58 am)Giff Wrote: So fantasies is truth for you?

You have to be blinkered Giff. You have to ignore facts to get to your position. This isn't scientifically sound. Your stance is illogical. You have to distort the truth to reach your conclusion.

(May 9, 2009 at 5:48 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 9, 2009 at 3:58 am)Giff Wrote: So fantasies is truth for you?

You have to be blinkered Giff. You have to ignore facts to get to your position. This isn't scientifically sound. Your stance is illogical. You have to distort the truth to reach your conclusion.

So what is the religious truth then? What I've seen do you just make things up. Also have you not been able to varify it either.

EVF Wrote:BUT - to BELIEVE you still need evidence. Whether you can have it or not. You STILL need a REASON to BELIEVE (i.e. evidence) before you can rationally believe something..

1. What is your own definition of 'god'?

(May 9, 2009 at 6:29 am)Giff Wrote: So what is the religious truth then? What I've seen do you just make things up. Also have you not been able to varify it either.

The Bible contains spiritual truths. I didn't make that up. Verify what exactly?