RE: OK, what IS the right classification...
September 28, 2011 at 3:46 am
(This post was last modified: September 28, 2011 at 4:26 am by fr0d0.)
I 'understand' that God exists Shell. You don't.
How did we get to these places? I work on evidence and you work on different evidence. We are convinced of our conclusions. We could not hold those conclusions if there wasn't sufficient evidence.
I already said that neither of us had "proof" <--- because if we did, the other one of us would have to retract, our evidence would be at fault. But neither of us can have proof, so both views are sustained.
I don't say "I believe in God. Because God exists, we know that...", I say "I believe in God using evidence". The same as you would say "I don't believe in God using evidence"
<edit>
If we're wanting to understand each other, you have to consider my perspective, and me yours.
You would say "Because God doesn't exist, therefore <this>"
I have to say "Because God exists, therefore <this>"
A different starting point given our reasoned positions. Nothing fallacious, but an honest representation of our position.
How did we get to these places? I work on evidence and you work on different evidence. We are convinced of our conclusions. We could not hold those conclusions if there wasn't sufficient evidence.
I already said that neither of us had "proof" <--- because if we did, the other one of us would have to retract, our evidence would be at fault. But neither of us can have proof, so both views are sustained.
I don't say "I believe in God. Because God exists, we know that...", I say "I believe in God using evidence". The same as you would say "I don't believe in God using evidence"
<edit>
If we're wanting to understand each other, you have to consider my perspective, and me yours.
You would say "Because God doesn't exist, therefore <this>"
I have to say "Because God exists, therefore <this>"
A different starting point given our reasoned positions. Nothing fallacious, but an honest representation of our position.
