RE: The Problem of Imperfect Revelation: Your Thoughts?
July 17, 2013 at 1:33 pm
(This post was last modified: July 17, 2013 at 1:34 pm by Simon Moon.)
(July 17, 2013 at 12:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The importance of evidence that is logically impossible... nah you're ok I have no interest in searching for that with you.
Yeah, because believing in something for which there is no evidence is ALWAYS justified...
OK, for arguments sake, lets say that evidence for the existence of 'God' is logically impossible to obtain. What should my justification to believe a god that does not leave evidence exists? What should I go by?
How do I tell the difference between an existent god for which evidence is impossible to obtain, and a nonexistent god?
Doesn't believing in something for which you admit evidence is logically impossible to obtain open you up to believing in anything which it also claimed that evidence is logically impossible to obtain?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
