Christian Paradox

[Eilonnwy]

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.

Nice strawman, but no. I never once said that, and Adrian and TheVoid adequately responded.

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?

And this is what you do when you get backed into a corner, you get skeptical of skepticism. I don't have to back up my statement with evidence, I'm not making an evidentiary claim here! When you say I must accept your claim that God has benevolent reasons for evil, you have to back it up. When I say I won't accept a claim without reliable evidence that's insight to my methodology. It is in fact, a methodology that works.

When it comes to understanding the world presuppositions are useless, it's the evidence that matters. People used to believe the sun was carried by a chariot based on presuppositions, it was the people willing to investigate and accept a new idea that lead to the discovery of the solar system. If we based our life on presuppositions from an ancient book we wouldn't even know that much!

Everything we know about the world is based on evidence. Just as we know how to make the computer you're talking to me on, create global systems of communication, medicine, clean water, more food production, transportation, space travel. All this is the sum total of our ability to make claims and back them up based on evidence and results. These same methods have helped us to understand the universe, evolution and everything else you deny because you prefer to read the one book your were raised to believe was true as true.

The world we live in speaks for itself. The methodology speaks for itself.

You accept a book uncritically and when people try to show you why those methods are flawed, why they are so open to misconceptions and falsehoods you get suddenly skeptical of the one method that does work. You work yourself around in circles, I sometimes think you don't know what's up and what's down.