Reasons

[Kyuuketsuki]

IMO you're post is incredibly childish and I don't need to bother to answer. Make a valid point and I'll answer. Until then.. keep preaching to the converted - I'm sure they appreciate the nonsense.

No Frodo I'm not and yet again you are dodging and being disingenuous.

Answer the points that were made or be graceful enough to admit you are unable or unwilling to do so.

God is only true for me because I believe it to be so. He can't be true for anyone else unless they also believe it. The God I know is the same God as the one other Christians believe in.

In which case your god is a logical contradiction, it either exists or it doesn't ... it CANNOT exist only for some but not for others.

Like I've said, there cannot be fact for the affirmative. But then the evidence is more than opinion.

What evidence?

If you could know exactly what I know then you would have REASON to believe that there is a God. Still you wouldn't NEED to believe, you would still need FAITH to believe.

Again the No True Scotsman argument ... you conveniently forget that many of us have been where you are and have subsequently rejected such childish fairy tales.

I think that's a good point. Even though I cannot know, and no one can; what I'm professing faith to is something that is in fact, a hard reality.

I think you twisted what Ev said ... in essence he said exactly what I am saying that god either exists or doesn't and that if the evidence you have for him would exist for everyone.

Maybe it's like scientific reasoning.. The best reasoning for any individual may construe God's existence and subsidiary details. Any other reasoning may come to light that wouldsupercede this reasoning.

Or maybe you're talking the usual theist twaddle.

Thoughts of faith are alive in this way and tested to be relevant as time passes.

You don't test your faith, you seek to confirm & bolster it.

You now seem to be saying that non empirical evidence would be valid for you. That seems to be a shift for you against your previous stance that only empirical evidence would be acceptable.

Sigh! Once again you twist what was said ... he's quite clearly saying that if there are valid reasons to believe in a god then that is evidence, if there is evidence it can be evaluated.

As we talk and explore reasoning on here(this forum) I'm telling you my reasoning. You need to quiz me on those specifics rather than being generalist here. Generally I can only tell you the principle, as I've done here.

And we have repeatedly asked that you provide specifics and you always retreat behind bullshit arguments like there being no evidence for your god (and as I have already asked, does that also apply for every other religion's invisible gods?).

No I can't. I can say that I believe he exists but I can say nothing factually, unless I had factual proof. I've already established that there can be no factual proof.

No you have not ESTABLISHED it, you have claimed it ... that's an entirely different thing and is heavily disputed.

I'm saying that I believe this to be true, Is this the same as saying that it's true?

Given there is no available validatable evidence it's the same as being deluded.

Not on the other hand at all. There can be no empirical evidence. There can be non empirical evidence. You and I have already established that between us, or I really am wasting my time if you don't remember.

There's no such thing, at least in principle, as non-empirical evidence unless you are talking about quantum mechanics and whilst that isn't fully understood I believe I am correct in saying that, to date, nothing predicted by QM has been demonstrated as false.

Not 'empirical evidence'. You have to be specific. Dawkins is!

Oh don't even compare your shit with Dawkins.

Like I said above.. lets get specific and find out.

Oh yes. Let's be specific ... what evidence do you have for the existence of your god and if no evidence is what we should expect then how do you differentiate between your (Christian) claim and that of other non-Christian religions past & present? IOW there are other people in this world who believe they're (non-Christian) god/s is/are real ... are they and, if not, why does your god deserve any more credence than theirs?

But you don't understand any of the reasoning. You've planted your flag on one side of the fence before knowing which side you agree with.

No, he hasn't for the very reason my question above implicitly highlights i.e. lots of people make claims about lots of things (many of them gods) without any supporting (validatable) evidence and he is rejecting your claim for the very same reasons he would reject theirs, the request you just made implicitly demands that he consider your claim above others and I (and I bet he) want to know why we should do that?

Obviously there are drawbacks to that strategy. The big one for me is that you can't now look at the problem objectively. You have to make the evidence fit your answer.

Say what? The rational mind DOES NOT make the evidence fit the answer and neither I nor Ev are doing so, we are asking the very same questions of you that we would ask anyone if they claimed something.

Kyu