I think having the right type of evidence to match what the subject of the proof is is completely irrelevant to you. You're still looking for materialistic evidence for the immaterial. Then you correlate that lack of material evidence as illogical. We do not agree on anything more than there is no material evidence for God. There is logical conclusions drawn from subjective experience that I call evidence. I believe since you're taking the materialistic approach, you are ill equipped to draw any conclusions about the immaterial.
So this is your argument??
1-there is no material evidence for God
2-faith is belief in something without material evidence
3-belief in God is illogical
So this is your argument??
1-there is no material evidence for God
2-faith is belief in something without material evidence
3-belief in God is illogical
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
