(April 5, 2016 at 1:11 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(April 5, 2016 at 12:51 pm)robvalue Wrote: To me, "faith" in the religious sense seems to be about continuing to believe something in spite of there being no credible evidence, whether you knew this all along or found out at some point and continued believing. It would be the equivalent of still believing in Santa Claus, despite it being pointed out to you that it's clearly not real, as there's no evidence and it's a ludicrous idea. I know theists hate that comparisons but too bad. It's valid. Santa is in fact a far more believable proposition.
If there was credible, demonstrable evidence of any of it, we wouldn't be having any of these discussions. And the constant attempts to equivocate with reasonable, evidence-based probabilistic expectations is a dead giveaway.
One minute there's evidence apparently coming out of their arses, the next God can't show himself because of interfering with free will or something.
By your same arguments, if there was credible, demostratable evidence of evolution , then we would not be having discussions on that either then... correct? What I notice, is that the standards change, when talking about God. As discussed before; I think this is unreasonable.
What Counts as Evidence?
What I find is that normally when some ask for evidence, is that they mean scientific repeatable evidence; which is a category mistake.
Oh, please, for the love of god not the evolution thing again...I just can't...it physically hurts after a while.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.