Christian Paradox

[rjh4 is back]

Conclusion 5 assumes you know something about which you say you don't know something in that same breath. You can't explain it, so you assume there is a good reason for the contradiction despite not being able to explain it.

You can't explain something you can't explain.

Ah. You mean like concluding that life must have formed from non-life in a naturalistic manner without being able to explain how this could/did happen.

I will never accept anything without reliable evidence.

Now there is an interesting statement. I assume that you accept this statement because you said it. What is the "reliable evidence" that supports this statement? What is the reliable evidence that you first used to determine that what you thought happened in the past actually happened in the past? The fact is that the statement is false. To make sense out of any fact or to have a world view (which everyone has regardless of whether or not they can articulate it) to begin with, one must rely upon some presupposition that one accepts without reliable evidence or proof (something that at least you take as self-evident). Just try to create a world view that does not begin with something that cannot be proved by something else using "reliable evidence" (i.e., that begins with something that can be proved using "reliable evidence"). It is impossible. You would then need "reliable evidence" for the "reliable evidence" ad infinitum.

So for us to really discuss, compare, and contrast our world views, it really comes down to a discussion of presuppositions. Otherwise, we will always be interpreting the same "facts" through our respective presuppositions and not understanding why the other comes to a different conclusion. So thinking about this, can you articulate your presuppositions?