(April 8, 2009 at 9:22 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:Again, I was talking about your idea of a subject to reason with. Observable phenomena is all hogwash.(April 7, 2009 at 8:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(April 7, 2009 at 9:11 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: I understand that one can argue that because a number of people have seen something, it is observable phenomena. No - observable phenomena is observable by anyone if they wish to see it. Much like if I wish to see the sky, I must go outside. And absolutely anyone who wants to see the sky, can outside for themselves.I discard this sort of evidence. I just don't find it useful. I also find it goes against belief.
What evidence? It simply comes back to how we define observable phenomena. And at this point in time, what science can know, is observable phenomena. As for what is can't know, it might still be there, there's just no reason to believe in it yet. I hope I never rule out the possibility of the existence of god, however at this point in time, I can't believe and simultaneously be honest with myself.
(April 8, 2009 at 9:22 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:(April 7, 2009 at 8:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(April 7, 2009 at 9:11 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: In 99.99% of cases, Christians are emotionally biased and do not include observable phenomena in their reasoning. The .01%? Call them an agnostic theist.Says you! I disagree. Only the foolish are swayed that much by emotion. I see it as a nice addition to the experience, nothing more. Every sensible Christian I know does the same.
Ha, I guess I was getting lazy and thought I'd throw in a made-up statistic.
What I was trying to say was that the majority of Christians do not base their faith on observable phenomena. But I do recognise that there are some very intelligent Christians who are aware of why they believe, what makes is reasonable to believe in it, and are capable of explaining it and backing up their claim to any takers. They also realise that everything they say is still, at least on one level, subjective. They simply find that there is more reason to believe in god than not.
They also have to realise the reason to believe involves an element of faith. Maybe I'm saying the same thing as you. Interesting though.
(April 8, 2009 at 11:43 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(April 6, 2009 at 3:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: When Christians converse they find they are in agreement on key findings. This is evidence of those common reasons.
Consensus on things that can't be demonstrated? Colour me impressed ... oh no wait ... I'm not.
What I was talking about was thoughtful's point that disparate reasoning was illogical. The point being it isn't disparate.
That these things can't be demonstrated is irrelevant here.
