(September 7, 2009 at 9:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: My point was that you say that I can't understand your reasoning because if I did then I would accept it. I'm saying that I could just as easily say the same to you. You say that you understand it 'fully' but don't accept it, but I'm then saying that if you really understood it fully then you would accept it! Just as you say to me.No I take this from your own words. You actually say you will not accept it until you believe it.
(September 7, 2009 at 9:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:Good then let's move on.Quote:You are different to me - you won't begin to let yourself understand (a self imposed restriction) with your proviso that you must have reason to accept the whole thing first.
This has been your own claim. As I have said time and time again, I'm totally willing to consider your views, that's the point of this debate. I just don't accept them as truth because I see no evidence, just as you don't accept mine.
(September 7, 2009 at 9:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The point has been me asking you why you believe belief without evidence is ever rational, why God is a special case, and why evidence not being possible for him - makes it any more rational to believe in him without it! Why believe at all?Well I've already explained why it is more rational. To explain why my belief in God is rational despite falling outside of the realm of empirical proofs sorta takes me outside of my belief. To ask me to explain something my faith is not takes the question outside of my reasoned stance. This question is your question to answer in regard to my belief. I can try to help you with it and I have many times. To me, as I've said, it is entirely illogical and a ridiculous premise on which to build anything. As a basis for atheism, as I've said, I find it clings to fanciful and marginal assumptions.
When we talk about evidence, we are talking purely the subject of scientific understanding. You have to hold that science describes everything in the universe, known and unknown. And we already know it doesn't describe everything in the known universe, so your base for discussion is completely unsound.
