Quote:Ah, you are realist and a coherentist my friend. I happen to be a intrumentalist and a foundationalist. But arguing about that will get us nowhere. Anyway you wanted evidence, yes? What is evidence? Evidence is not proof. Evidence is something that gives a sign of the existence or truth of something. So you cannot ask me for evidence without me going to reasoning or trying to show that in philosophical way your reasoning is flawed. You see evidence can be seen(and is) as reasoning + material objects but the only material evidence I have is not even material at all since its threw a computer. Neither scientific laws or theories nor God are considered material. Therefore even if you saw God and everyone knew he was real because he appeared to all of us right at this moment would he be material. I would consider that very much evidence but to you in this case you would by your own criteria reject it.
I would be curious what a potential brother in Christ is doing so far from the light he doesn't let the mere possiblity of a Creator pop it too its head. He even says were he to be beaten(in a debate) he would deny that even though he was not able to reason that he probley was wrong. Unless you can make a standing arguement my friend then your reasoning for not believing in God is flawed.
I would also ask you really think philosophically about what is real? You are so quick to assume the world around us is completely real and exists for certain. Not to say I believe this but the arguements for solipism and subjectivism are somewhat compelling. But Empiricism may be alittle more my attitude.
For the final time: I do not argue with apologists. I reject the notion the truth can be revealed by reason alone and show me your (credible) evidence or fuck off.
That we disagree is fine. Although unsurprised by your patronising,I'd be obligedif you didn't make it a habit. Oh, I think patronsing your opponent comes under the heading of an ad hominem attack..
