The Reasons to Believe in Yahweh

[John V]

A person's word (claim) alone is not evidence, and just because you can CALL it evidence (because you want to open the door for your Yahweh) doesn't make it so. Just because some people try to SAY that "saying" or "claiming" is evidence, doesn't make it evidence.

Do you believe the Gettysburg address occurred? If so, based on what evidence?

Do you believe every claim you hear?

No. This is a false bifurcation fallacy.

WOW. How inaccurate and reductionist of you. Could you be any more dishonest? Those terms are NOT exclusive. And YOUR claims are BOTH extraordinary AND unexplained.

So they’re extraordinary and unexplained, yet not miraculous. Can you define miraculous for us?

Wake up. You're in the competitive flea market of religions, magic sellers, sorcerers, alien seekers, and new agers. And you're all making supernatural claims that can't be consistently demonstrated. Should we just lower our standards of evidence because you say so?

I haven’t said you should lower your standards of evidence. You’re telling me that I should raise mine. Should I do so because you say so, and USE lots of CAPS?

Now you’re getting it a little bit. Different people have different standards of evidence. These can be influenced by, among other things, their philosophic stances. As a theist, I have a lower standard of evidence regarding certain things. As presumably a materialist, you probably have lower standards of evidence regarding other things, such as abiogenesis.

NO actually. This is 100% false. Unlike you, I do not practice hypocrisy with standards of evidence. When something is not known, it is accepted as "I don't know." But thanks for admitting that you are a hypocrite with your standards of evidence (willing to apply them unequally because of the assumptions you made from the outset).

I find that hard to believe. You don’t know that god doesn’t exist, yet you come across as a strong atheist, rather than an agnostic.

Everyone "does" what? Has "faith" in hear-say? NOPE! That is, yet again, another one of your blind assumptions (based upon your assumption of Christian theology which you accepted uncritically from the beginning). No, not all people staunchly hold to supernatural claims on hear-say. Some of us have actually decided not to practice credulity, deciding rather to hold things tentatively. But religious faith is NOT tentative. It is firm and unwavering. This is why YOU, and other apologists, are trying to "defend the faith".

What evidence do you have for that position?

If you are talking about "having faith" in demonstrable, ordinary, common occurrences the equivocation is yours - because that is NOT faith. Faith is believing when you don't have good reason or evidence, and there is a BIG difference between THAT and tentatively trusting in a previously established common or ordinary occurrence.

I’m talking about abiogenesis, as I noted.

HAHAHA! WOW. This is a perfect and classic example of Christian apologist SPIN and rationalizing. You're going to play the Pickin n Choosin game now? Have you even read your bible? Open it sometime (John 14, 1 Cor 2, Matt 10). Your bible clearly states that if you are a believer/follower of Jesus you WILL do these things. Nice try at throwing out passages that you don't like though.

If you want to quote the actual passages, we can discuss. You omit the bluster and actually post the passage, like this:

1 Tim 5
23 No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

Why do you think Paul suggested a medicinal approach, rather than a trip to the faith healer?

Of course, since you have already demonstrated that you practice hypocrisy with your standards of evidence (lowering them only for YOUR interpretation of YOUR religion),

No, I’ve applied the same standard to Islam and Christianity.