Question for the theist.

[fr0d0]

Damn U Evie!!!

You still haven't countered my argument though. Looks to me like you're just merely dismissing the logic of it.

Yeah because you and I are talking theory. If your argument isn't logical then to me I couldn't hold that opinion. It'd have to make sense.

I don't know why not though.

Ok so: 1. You and I both define faith as belief without evidence right? 2. If there is reasoning to believe God actually exists then this would IOW equate to evidence right? 3. If '2.' is true and there IS reasoning to believe God actually exists and therefore IOW there's evidence of some form, then you couldn't be believing with faith or 'have faith' in God because you believe with evidence (or IOW - with good reason!) and you can't believe 'on faith' or 'with faith' when there is evidence.

What don't you get there?

1. Yep
2. No. Unless evidence can = don't know

You get a glimpse on the other side and reason the leap may be worth it? IOW you have some reasoning to believe on faith?(i.e completely without evidence?)

Yes

But if the reasons are at all valid for taking to leap on faith then they would somehow give reason to believe that God exists. They would be some form of evidence.

Evidence = non provable

And if that reasoning or evidence makes you think the leap of faith is worth it - then you actually not only don't NEED the leap of faith but you CAN'T have it by definition because if you could then you couldn't have the 'rational glimpse' or reasoning that you speak of TO make the leap - because if the reasoning is at all valid then it would count as evidence and hence cancel out the "faith"!

LoL

Is there any way you can work that out to make sense? I mean, make the faith essential and the evidence impossible? This is the equation you're dealing with here.

LaterZ fr0d0! (*watches out for Kyu watching 'overhead like a hawk'* (it seems to piss him off when I say "laterZ" rather than "laters" LOL)).

L8rz Evie