(May 24, 2009 at 4:17 pm)P3RFECT Wrote: As I stated above I do not myself have physical evidence to support the existence of God that would change your mind within 10 minutes.
What I would like to do is discuss the term faith and rationality or irrationality behind it. It seems we differ on the definition of that by your qoutes and the discussion on the other thread. If you don't mind.
Yes you are welcome to discuss it in that thread.
The simplest reason I can give is in my quote and the OP for that thread ('Why the term 'rational faith' is an oxymoron').
I know you said you don't have physical evidence. But does that mean you admit that you have no valid reason to believe at all? No rational reasons to believe AT ALL?
Because if you had rational reasons to believe that WERE valid that DID hold true because God DOES exist then that would IOW equate to evidence of his existence.
If you have no evidence you IOW have no valid reasons to believe in God's existence - if you did it would IOW equate to evidence of his existence.
So, what valid reason(s) of any shape or form do you have to believe in God's existence? Or in another translation, IOW: What evidence of any shape or form do you have of God's existence?
EvF
