No verifiable evidence is the Christian position

[Chas]

Because it's logically valid Esq. Logically valid yet possible to translate another way. I don't see how the alternate translation/s lead to an equally satisfying answer, but that's for you to support, if you oppose it.

Esq spotted it Chas. "verifiable"

I assumed 'verifiable' when I said 'evidence'.

If it's not verifiable, it isn't evidence.

[Esquilax]

Because it's logically valid Esq. Logically valid yet possible to translate another way. I don't see how the alternate translation/s lead to an equally satisfying answer, but that's for you to support, if you oppose it.

Esq spotted it Chas. "verifiable"

Wait, is that seriously your position?

You're on really, really shaky ground there. For one, logic doesn't necessarily lead to truth; it only does so if one feeds in correct premises, and you've just admitted that there's more than one way to interpret the evidence you're using. Besides that, your second sentence is fallacious from top to bottom; when it's not being an argument from ignorance ("I can't think of a response that I find more satisfying, and therefore this is right") it's being an argument from personal incredulity ("I can't see how any explanation could be better, therefore god.") Furthermore, it doesn't matter what explanation you think is more satisfying, unless you can... oh, right, demonstrate that it correlates with physical reality. And to do that, you'd need to verify that your evidence supports your claim.

[Faith No More]

If there is no verifiable evidence for Christianity, what do you propose should lead us to the conclusion it is true?

[fr0d0]

Esq:

1. logically it has to be an open answer, otherwise it would logically follow that we couldn't be addressing the supernatural.

2. You disagree about discerning the best answer? just, wow.

Just like any agnostic, I should not rule out the possibility that what looks to be utterly convincing may actually be incorrect, that it's all. I'm not choosing between equally convincing arguments, or I'd be an atheist.

3. Circular reasoning

---

If there is no verifiable evidence for Christianity, what do you propose should lead us to the conclusion it is true?

The usual faith. Y'know, faith.

[Esquilax]

Esq:

1. logically it has to be an open answer, otherwise it would logically follow that we couldn't be addressing the supernatural.

But not having a conclusive answer in no way justifies recourse to entirely non-verifiable juju.

2. You disagree about discerning the best answer? just, wow.

It doesn't matter what you think the best answer is, it matters what the true answer is. The thing is, you're bringing into any discussion you have a whole slew of biases and heuristics that do lead people astray; this is why science uses repeatability, and falsifiability, and rigorous peer review, to strip away those elements that might lead us astray, leaving only the objectively most accurate answer.

What you're suggesting is that the best answer, in certain cases, cannot be tested like this, and that the answer you're giving can't ever be demonstrated to be true. How are we to separate this idea of yours from a delusion, especially when we have actual, verifiable evidence that shows otherwise?

Just like any agnostic, I should not rule out the possibility that what looks to be utterly convincing may actually be incorrect, that it's all. I'm not choosing between equally convincing arguments, or I'd be an atheist.

Since you've got no evidence that you can produce, you've got no reason to be convinced at all.

3. Circular reasoning

Wow, really? "Circular reasoning?" I never thought about it like that before! Shit, "Circular reasoning!" What a well spoken and cogent rebuttal! Thanks, Frodo! You've fucking convinced me!

[Faith No More]

The usual faith. Y'know, faith.

So, nothing then. Thanks for clearing that up.

Let me rephrase...what should lead me to conclude I should have faith and that faith leads me to truth?

[fr0d0]

Non verifiable evidence is the obvious answer I'd go for faith.

---

Esq

It is the true answer if it's the only logical one.

How many scientists replicating an answer does it take to declare a theory? Two?
How many religious people replicating an answer does it take to declare a theory? There cannot be enough apparently.

I produce the bible as evidence. So according to you, "I have reason to be convinced"

Circular reasoning, yes. You demand that unlike in the real world, you must have physical evidence of something that isn't physical. Do you see the circle? In denying the truth, you are able to support your assertion that this particular non physical thing cannot be logical.
You insist that we must have evidence of this thing that cannot, by its nature, be evidenced. Again, circular reasoning.
Wake up and smell the mustard Esq. It smells of shit, because you're full of it.

[Faith No More]

Non verifiable evidence is the obvious answer I'd go for faith.

Should've known you'd fail to be specific...

[fr0d0]

Sorry not no derail my own thread lover

[Faith No More]

Sorry not no derail my own thread lover

That's not derailing. That is natural progression, you sexy beast.