How are you deciding what is or isn't and what can or cannot be discussed?
This debate was set up so we could settle our differences on matters of evidence and faith. And my main quibble with you is the fact that you believe things without evidence and claim that this is 'rational' or there is 'logic' or 'reasoning' in it....how can you claim such a thing is rational? It has no evidence.
And also, you say that arguments such as the TAG (or other arguments) that Jon Paul and Arcanus have proposed somehow...prove God...which completely contradicts your view of there being no evidence for God. Proof is as strong evidence as you can get.
EvF
This debate was set up so we could settle our differences on matters of evidence and faith. And my main quibble with you is the fact that you believe things without evidence and claim that this is 'rational' or there is 'logic' or 'reasoning' in it....how can you claim such a thing is rational? It has no evidence.
And also, you say that arguments such as the TAG (or other arguments) that Jon Paul and Arcanus have proposed somehow...prove God...which completely contradicts your view of there being no evidence for God. Proof is as strong evidence as you can get.
EvF
