Fr0d0, I have already made it clear many times (and as clear as I could all in that last post of mine) that I am not talking about only scientific evidence, or empirical evidence...I am talking about anything that actually indicates the truth of whatever you believe in actually existing (in this case your "God" that you believe in) - any evidence of your God actually existing...any indication of the truth of it.
My point is that it doesn't matter whether there can be evidence or not as I keep saying. The point is that whether there can be or not - it's still irrational to believe 'On Faith' in both cases. If there is no evidence it's not rational to just go ahead and believe anyway in the name of "faith". Presumably there can be no more or less evidence for God than for the FSM but do you think that if there can't be evidence for the FSM either then that supports the FSM, that gives credibility to it?
So to bold some points form my post where I already explained all this and you just repeat the "Science has no bearing" and "You need faith" stuff again...
On the matter of Evidence:
Which is what evidence is in its most broadest sense right? - Eomething that gives credence to the truth of a belief?
And the point I keep trying to make is; if evidence is IOW indication of the truth of such a thing you believe in actually existing, then how is it rational to believe without evidence? How is believing on faith ever rational?
I do have a problem; and my problem is the fact that how is it not entirely irrational to believe in the existence of something without any evidence of any form whatsoever, if that in other words means that there's no indication whatsoever of any form, of the thing you believe in actually existing? How is that not rational? It's completely blind because all the 'reasons' you have don't actually indicate the existence of God--and yet you believe in him anyway--because if they did it would be evidence of some form (and this be valid)...and you of course say there is no evidence. So, how is that not irrational?
So: My argument is that "Faith", being belief without evidence is entirely irrational in and of itself.
I do not see how you see me persistently trying to get an actual explanation for how that's not irrational, or to get an admittance that it is irrational--and is not just as invalid as anything else without evidence whatsoever (the FSM for example)--is 'the definition of stupidity'? Because I think the "faith" you have is a pretty damn good definition of irrationality.
Please do explain to me how you can believe in the existence of something without any indication of the truth of that thing actually existing (in other words without any evidence) without you being irrational in doing so...and - how to choose one thing without evidence over another, is, therefore, not simply cherry-picking? Because these 'reasons' you speak of are not valid to the actual existence (otherwise they'd be evidence, and you say they're not evidence and can't be evidence), so they're not at all rational, right? And it's simply cherry-picking to choose one belief without evidence over another, then, if they're all entirely without support, is it not?
EvF
My point is that it doesn't matter whether there can be evidence or not as I keep saying. The point is that whether there can be or not - it's still irrational to believe 'On Faith' in both cases. If there is no evidence it's not rational to just go ahead and believe anyway in the name of "faith". Presumably there can be no more or less evidence for God than for the FSM but do you think that if there can't be evidence for the FSM either then that supports the FSM, that gives credibility to it?
So to bold some points form my post where I already explained all this and you just repeat the "Science has no bearing" and "You need faith" stuff again...
On the matter of Evidence:
EvF Wrote:[...]if you in any way can have objective reasons that indicate God to actually exist in some sense in reality - then that would IOW be evidence of some form. Because it would be giving credence to the truth of the belief.
Which is what evidence is in its most broadest sense right? - Eomething that gives credence to the truth of a belief?
And the point I keep trying to make is; if evidence is IOW indication of the truth of such a thing you believe in actually existing, then how is it rational to believe without evidence? How is believing on faith ever rational?
(June 20, 2009 at 5:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Have any bearing on what matter Evie?
EvF Wrote:The point is how can belief in something that there is no evidence of whatsoever ( and IOW no indication of the truth of believing that such a thing actually exists, in this case "God") be rational and/or have any objective bearing on the matter at all?
fr0d0 Wrote:Now tell me infinite more times that there's no evidence and why anyway choose one over the other. You never actually say why you have problems with my answers, you only repeat blindly the questions, insisting on evidence. That's got to be the definition of stupidity.
I do have a problem; and my problem is the fact that how is it not entirely irrational to believe in the existence of something without any evidence of any form whatsoever, if that in other words means that there's no indication whatsoever of any form, of the thing you believe in actually existing? How is that not rational? It's completely blind because all the 'reasons' you have don't actually indicate the existence of God--and yet you believe in him anyway--because if they did it would be evidence of some form (and this be valid)...and you of course say there is no evidence. So, how is that not irrational?
So: My argument is that "Faith", being belief without evidence is entirely irrational in and of itself.
I do not see how you see me persistently trying to get an actual explanation for how that's not irrational, or to get an admittance that it is irrational--and is not just as invalid as anything else without evidence whatsoever (the FSM for example)--is 'the definition of stupidity'? Because I think the "faith" you have is a pretty damn good definition of irrationality.
Please do explain to me how you can believe in the existence of something without any indication of the truth of that thing actually existing (in other words without any evidence) without you being irrational in doing so...and - how to choose one thing without evidence over another, is, therefore, not simply cherry-picking? Because these 'reasons' you speak of are not valid to the actual existence (otherwise they'd be evidence, and you say they're not evidence and can't be evidence), so they're not at all rational, right? And it's simply cherry-picking to choose one belief without evidence over another, then, if they're all entirely without support, is it not?
EvF
