Hello!

[Ryft]

Because your post didn't seem to answer my question at all. I want to know how you study it, when there's no evidence for the very thing you're studying.

My post did answer your question, by pointing out that theology is not an "it" or one singular "thing." See my first paragraph. It's like asking that someone tell you how philosophy is studied, which cannot be answered because it is a huge arena of numerous subjects; we study subject X in this way, and subject Y in that way, etc. For example, one does not study Logic in the same way that one studies Ethics.

Furthermore, your insistent request for evidence of God was also answered by my post. See my second paragraph. You want to evaluate the Christian view by presupposing the truth of your view, but that simply will not work and will lead to question-begging consequences. Watch carefully now.

1. When it comes to determining the truth of something, you need to use (i) a definition of truth and (ii) a set of criteria that is consistent with it (metaphysics and epistemology). Now, which definition and criteria do you use? Do you use the Definition & Criteria set from your world view, A, or do you use the Definition/Criteria set from the Christian world view, B?

2. You would of course use A. Now, what are you going to find out by using A to evaluate B? The only thing you can find out: that there is a conflict between B and A, because they are antithetical. As I had said, "Christian metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with yours. And your metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with Christianity's."

3. But does this mean that B is false? Only if A is true. So how do you determine whether or not A is true? Well therein lies the problem, in virtue of the fact that A contains the definition of truth and its methodological criteria. Consequently, if you determine the truth of A by using A you commit the logical fallacy of begging the question, reaching a conclusion by means of premises which presuppose that conclusion.

See my third paragraph: "It comes down to this. Christian metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with yours. And your metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with Christianity's. What you have are two antithetical systems which you have to choose between. How you make that choice is up to you. My hunch is that, like most people, the one you choose will be the result of presupposing its truth. Why you presupposed the truth of that one over the other had no intellectual basis, since an intellectual basis requires metaphysical/epistemological criteria, which you don't have until after your choice. And finally, what you may not realize is that the Christian does the exact same thing."