I didn't say it had to be democratic. I'm saying that just because you think it, it doesn't make it so - this is true.
It may make sense to you...but you're just cherry-picking 'faith' out as something special. In any other case evidence would be reasonable...
And I've already showed in that post how you contradict yourself....
And how every time I make that point you dodge/ignore it! Like you have here...by mentioning my verbosity despite the fact I'm providing an argument here and not just talking bullshit.
As I said, you say you have rational reasons to believe in God, this would= evidence...by definition...yet you say evidence is out of bounds on the God matter...so this is a contradiction unless you admit to actually believing with no valid reason at all. Because that's what believing without evidence is. Evidence=something that gives credence to a belief...
Now are you gonna give another dodge/digression/ignore..?
You haven't dealt with this yet. You're caught in a net because it's either evidence or no credence for your belief whatsoever - by definition.
Gonna revert back to believing in 'non empirical' evidence perhaps? Or completely contradict the views you've expressed as you've done before - jumping back to saying that God can be logically proved perhaps? Which completely contradicts your whole 'there can be no evidnece for God' thing...because proof is the strongest fucking form of evidence there is! That would be a massive contradiciton.
EvF
It may make sense to you...but you're just cherry-picking 'faith' out as something special. In any other case evidence would be reasonable...
And I've already showed in that post how you contradict yourself....
And how every time I make that point you dodge/ignore it! Like you have here...by mentioning my verbosity despite the fact I'm providing an argument here and not just talking bullshit.
As I said, you say you have rational reasons to believe in God, this would= evidence...by definition...yet you say evidence is out of bounds on the God matter...so this is a contradiction unless you admit to actually believing with no valid reason at all. Because that's what believing without evidence is. Evidence=something that gives credence to a belief...
Now are you gonna give another dodge/digression/ignore..?
You haven't dealt with this yet. You're caught in a net because it's either evidence or no credence for your belief whatsoever - by definition.
Gonna revert back to believing in 'non empirical' evidence perhaps? Or completely contradict the views you've expressed as you've done before - jumping back to saying that God can be logically proved perhaps? Which completely contradicts your whole 'there can be no evidnece for God' thing...because proof is the strongest fucking form of evidence there is! That would be a massive contradiciton.
EvF
