[ARCHIVED] - Evidence Vs Faith

[fr0d0]

Let me begin by defining evidence, as it's easy for misunderstanding to arise on our meaning. I read every instance of the use of the word 'evidence' here to mean 'provable evidence'.

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?

Right - step one - evidence
The premise for belief in God is that his existence is non evidential. Examining the evidence trail is completely irrelevant and off topic. You frame the question in your own understanding, whilst declaring your non understanding. This is completely illogical.

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?

It is not something I don't understand, but an entity who's existence cannot be understood.

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.

That's because you frame the question in your own understanding. This is beyond you're understanding (not mine, I understand it). I don't have to explain how I can believe without evidence. It's a negative. I don't consider belief in God with evidence. It's nonsensical to my belief in God.


Repetition:

"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?"

Repetition:

"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?"

Of course not.


Repetition:

"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."

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.

No it's a full choice.

Repetition:

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.

Repetition:

I just want to understand how you can possibly rationally justify believing without evidence (see above).

Repetition:

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.

Do you see how much there you followed your own agenda and completely ignored my points? If you continue this brainless quest I'll stop responding here. I want a discussion not mindless repetition. You're stone walling me.