(May 21, 2009 at 8:38 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: And if you have a rational reason to make a leap of faith in God's existence - then if you HAVE a rational reason that would equate to evidence so you couldn't HAVE faith because you can't have faith in something when there is evidence of it.
(May 21, 2009 at 2:31 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You make too many assumptions Evie.You still haven't countered my argument though. Looks to me like you're just merely dismissing the logic of it.
Quote:You can't have rational reasoning that makes it sure you need the leap... that would be entirely illogical, like you say.That's not what you said before. Before you said that you COULD have rational reasoning to make the leap:
fr0d0 Wrote:There can't be rationalising for faith... but rationalising for a reason to take the faith leap. Very different.- you said on the 'Reasoning for belief in God' thread that you started. (My bolding).
Quote:The more you say on this the more you prove the evidence shit is so very illogical.So expecting evidence for God is illogical apparently? Presumably because as you say it's stupid because there CAN'T be any because it would require 'God like measuring tools that we don't have'. But what??? - does that mean you think we should believe WITHOUT evidence simply because there CAN'T be any? ( there can't for sake of argument anyway).
How does 1. Evidence = Impossible for God (because we can't measure him, etc) mean that 2. We therefore should believe in God WITHOUT evidence???
It's of course only rational to believe in the EXISTENCE of something if there is actually evidence, actually some indication - that it actually exists!!! If you have no reason whatsoever to believe in the existence of something but you believe anyway - then you can't really get any more irrational than THAT can you! It's illogical. Nonsensical.
And it's giving biased special treatment because the above also applies to the FSM:
Does 1. Evidence = Impossible for the FSM (because we can't measure it, etc) mean that 2. We therefore should believe in the FSM WITHOUT evidence???
And if not why do you think this logic applies to God? If evidence for something IS indeed IMPOSSIBLE does that mean you should just go ahead and believe anyway?
Like "Oh well...it appears it's logically impossible for there to be any indication whatsoever that God actually exists (any evidence whatsoever) so there's no rational reason to believe... Oh well *shrugs* looks like we're just gonna have to believe anyway!!"
EvF
