1. Evidence is valid to belief by definition, if you are to rational, as I've explained over and over and you've dodged/ignored and called me unoriginal.
2. You contradict yourself again. If their argument is valid it is evidence, and yet in 1 you say the request for evidence is valid...because I never spoke of EXTRA evidence....I'm saying that their arguments aren't evidence...if they were valid then they would be evidence.
3. I'm attracted to evidence in the sense that it's absolutely paramount for being rational, any belief without evidence is irrational by definition. I've explained this over and over and even put the point in my sig now....you call me zombie and repettive, and yet the difference between me and you here...is that I'm actually trying to get a message across here, all you're doing on the otherhand is repeating over and over that I'm 'unoriginal', or being like a 'zombie'.....and also you still claim JP's and Arcanus' arguments are valid without supporting it. Over and over you keep repeating this.
You can't simply say that you don't need to support it because their arguments are 'already there', I know they are - and I say it's not evidence... you say it is...but that's just an opinion then if you're not going to back it up at all. If you're going to keep asserting it then I expect support from yourself because otherwise you might as well just tell it to yourself.
Again and again you barely assert that their arguments are logical....at least when I'm repetitive I try to explain myself.
EvF
2. You contradict yourself again. If their argument is valid it is evidence, and yet in 1 you say the request for evidence is valid...because I never spoke of EXTRA evidence....I'm saying that their arguments aren't evidence...if they were valid then they would be evidence.
3. I'm attracted to evidence in the sense that it's absolutely paramount for being rational, any belief without evidence is irrational by definition. I've explained this over and over and even put the point in my sig now....you call me zombie and repettive, and yet the difference between me and you here...is that I'm actually trying to get a message across here, all you're doing on the otherhand is repeating over and over that I'm 'unoriginal', or being like a 'zombie'.....and also you still claim JP's and Arcanus' arguments are valid without supporting it. Over and over you keep repeating this.
You can't simply say that you don't need to support it because their arguments are 'already there', I know they are - and I say it's not evidence... you say it is...but that's just an opinion then if you're not going to back it up at all. If you're going to keep asserting it then I expect support from yourself because otherwise you might as well just tell it to yourself.
Again and again you barely assert that their arguments are logical....at least when I'm repetitive I try to explain myself.
EvF
