(May 13, 2009 at 5:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(May 13, 2009 at 11:56 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(May 9, 2009 at 6:04 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Evidence has been discounted unless you can counter the logic presented... that you'd need god like measuring tools to view the evidence. If you cannot counter this logic, then you can't keep repeating the evidence line. It's presently debunked.
... but I don't agree with this.
IOW I agree that your reasoning makes absolute sense to you but I don't agree that our line of questioning (of attack if you wish) is wrong or, indeed, that you can consider it "debunked" ... in essence you've made a claim (to view evidence for "God" you need the appropriate godlike tools) but that relies on the truth of God's existence which is far from proven or even accepted.
In essence it puts us right back at the extraordinary claim ... you've made one but you need extraordinary evidence to support the claim.
Kyu
Absolutely agreed. I stretched the idea to state that. You are correct.
Odd...are you saying you absolutely agree with what Kyu just said?? Well...if so - would that include his last line? That you've made an extraordinary claim and you need extraordinary evidence?
Well; if your 'absolute agreement' with Kyu includes this, includes that last line of his...
Where's the evidence then? Surely you must have made a mistake because you keep saying there can be no evidence (or at least no EMPIRICAL evidence)....
But you said that you 'stretched the idea to state that' - does that mean that you've stretched your idea to include the notion that you DO need extraordinary evidence? If not, stretched WHAT idea, and are you being serious?
Where is the evidence? (I will keep talking of evidence. You believe in God's existence then I'm gonna want evidence - if you have any valid reasons it would be evidence! So were ARE the valid reasons/evidence? (whether those valid reasons are for 'faith itself' or not).
