LOL, yeah because that's exactly what I said and I definitely didn't imply the exact opposite did I(?!)
I'm saying that if their reasoned faith is at all valid, then it can't be faith, it's reasoned evidence. Due to the logic I presented in the post you just quoted. It's true by definition right? Evidence is that what gives credence to a belief, so without evidence they have no credence for their belief....so since their reasoned faith has no evidence (by definition, cos it's 'faith'), then the reasoning doesn't give credence to their belief, so their belief is deluded (a false belief). If their reasoned faith gives credence to their belief on the other hand, then it can't be faith because if it gives credence to the belief then it's evidence!
EvF
I'm saying that if their reasoned faith is at all valid, then it can't be faith, it's reasoned evidence. Due to the logic I presented in the post you just quoted. It's true by definition right? Evidence is that what gives credence to a belief, so without evidence they have no credence for their belief....so since their reasoned faith has no evidence (by definition, cos it's 'faith'), then the reasoning doesn't give credence to their belief, so their belief is deluded (a false belief). If their reasoned faith gives credence to their belief on the other hand, then it can't be faith because if it gives credence to the belief then it's evidence!
EvF
