I wish to proceed by trying to understand why on earth you believe, that it's rational to believe in this God of yours, without evidence or in other words on "Faith".
How is that rational?
Now, for your points:
I am not changing the definition of your God, you can define him any way you wish. What I'm questioning is why you believe in him without evidence. If there can be no evidence from him, that's fine, if that's the way he's defined, that's fine. But then, if there definitely is and can be no evidence in your view, then why do you believe? How do you justify it? How is that rational in any way?
Do you, or do you not agree with my premise that belief without evidence is belief without support, because by definition evidence is simply what gives credence to a belief?
So on this matter of choice for belief in God, do you only consider it a slight choice then? Since you say it's not much of one.
I am ready and willing to discuss and am doing. I just so far completely fail to understand how belief in your God without evidence, can be rational in any way, that's all. I still wonder how you justify it. Because I find the admittance of belief without evidence to be an indication of believing irrationally, by definition! (Once again, see above) Which I consider to be preposterous.
EvF
How is that rational?
Now, for your points:
Quote:There is nothing to discuss. I state my belief and the reasoning for that belief. The reasoning for that belief includes the condition that God is non temporal. ie he doesn't exist in a way that we could ever understand. By definition.Why then, do you believe in something that does not exist in any way you could understand by definition? How can you rationally believe something that you do not understand in any way? If there was actually evidence for it on the other hand, you'd then be rational to believe in it, you'd understand why you believed in it; why? - because the belief would have support! That's why; there's actually a valid reason to believe; a rational one. I am yet to get an explanation from you, as to why believing without evidence - and therefore without support - why believing on "Faith", is in any way rational whatsoever.
Quote:This entity you wish to discuss is therefore clearly not the God that I believe in. To discuss your conditions of existence would be to discuss something else entirely.
I am not changing the definition of your God, you can define him any way you wish. What I'm questioning is why you believe in him without evidence. If there can be no evidence from him, that's fine, if that's the way he's defined, that's fine. But then, if there definitely is and can be no evidence in your view, then why do you believe? How do you justify it? How is that rational in any way?
Do you, or do you not agree with my premise that belief without evidence is belief without support, because by definition evidence is simply what gives credence to a belief?
Quote:So then we go on to discuss why my POV is logical with this God being impossible to 'know'.I also agree it's impossible to know for sure either way.
Quote: Except we don't get as far as considering my belief because you will not consider it before fully accepting it.I consider the possibility, I just don't accept it without evidence. I consider the possibility without evidence, but then I realize that that doesn't even make sense by definition. See above.
Quote: I think I can understand almost every sane POV, I just don't accept all of them; ..unless it presents itself to me as more logical than my own POV. I don't have much choice in this, my brain seems to be hard wired to go with the most logical conclusion.It could be me speaking there. I'd just change 'don't have much choice', to 'don't have a choice'.
So on this matter of choice for belief in God, do you only consider it a slight choice then? Since you say it's not much of one.
Quote:When people discuss anything there always has to be different points of view. If you refuse to discuss anything you don't believe in then you can't discuss anything!?
I am ready and willing to discuss and am doing. I just so far completely fail to understand how belief in your God without evidence, can be rational in any way, that's all. I still wonder how you justify it. Because I find the admittance of belief without evidence to be an indication of believing irrationally, by definition! (Once again, see above) Which I consider to be preposterous.
Quote:You have said that you're not refusing, but then you demand, by force of repetition, that I only talk about what you believe in.Actually I never said that of course. You are just making out that I'm implying that. But I'm not, you can define God any way you will. Evidence for God can be possible or impossible, that's fine too. I just want to understand how you can possibly rationally justify believing without evidence (see above).
Quote: It has to be what you demand it is, and that is, contradictory to the logic that I believe in.It can be any way you want. This doesn't apply just to God for me, this applies to anything. It's just that God is a huge example of a rather big belief without evidence, that you hold. Any belief without evidence, I fail to understand how can be rational in any way. Please do explain.
EvF
