His premises can't be rationally based on anything by definition because he says his belief has no evidence. This is the problem. And he won't accept that, so he switches back and forth between 'no evidence' and 'no empirical evidence'.
And what's even funnier is that at times he's even said there can be logical proof for God, he's said this on a few occasions in respect to Jon Paul's and Arcanus' arguments, etc. And proof is as strong evidence as you can get! So there's a massive contradiction there. Kind of problematic.
But this is not the issue here Luke, not per se anyway...the issue is his belief that belief in God is a choice, not his belief in God itself. However the above logic still applies in respect to this topic too, if he once again expects no evidence!
I ask you fr0d0, once again: if you're unwilling to backup your position on this topic, nevermind your belief in God itself, I'm talking this matter of your belief that belief in God is a choice here - then how do you suggest we discuss this matter?!
EvF
And what's even funnier is that at times he's even said there can be logical proof for God, he's said this on a few occasions in respect to Jon Paul's and Arcanus' arguments, etc. And proof is as strong evidence as you can get! So there's a massive contradiction there. Kind of problematic.
But this is not the issue here Luke, not per se anyway...the issue is his belief that belief in God is a choice, not his belief in God itself. However the above logic still applies in respect to this topic too, if he once again expects no evidence!
I ask you fr0d0, once again: if you're unwilling to backup your position on this topic, nevermind your belief in God itself, I'm talking this matter of your belief that belief in God is a choice here - then how do you suggest we discuss this matter?!
EvF
