RE: No verifiable evidence is the Christian position
August 19, 2013 at 3:12 am
(This post was last modified: August 19, 2013 at 3:13 am by FallentoReason.)
(August 19, 2013 at 3:04 am)fr0d0 Wrote:(August 19, 2013 at 1:59 am)FallentoReason Wrote: If you could point me to the post #, that would be much appreciated.
~
"The logically impossible is both undetectable and non-existent."
I don't see how this is refuting what I've said. All I see here is that from *your perspective* your god is half way to being logically impossible. The question is, how do you know that your god's undetectable attribute doesn't stem from pure non-existence?
#1 I think I only alluded to it in this thread. I think all religious endeavour covers the same subject. I find Christianity to be the currently ultimate evolutionary step, in that it goes one further than all others in making God directly accessible by making us perfect. This is no minor difference. It's a huge benefit in the removal of guilt and enhancement of life: the reason I give to support my faith.
Maybe whateverist was right. It's purely your preference to be a Christian and not a truth-based choice. The fact that you kudo'd my two posts entailing the *exact opposite* seems very worrying at this stage.
Quote:#2 it refutes what you said by destroying it. God is totally logical where you're examples are the opposite. How I know is by using reason.
Your justification for requiring faith is that God is unverifiable. Therefore, your argument is that "if x is unverifiable, then requiring faith to believe in x is justified". This allows garden gnomes to be x, dragons and the spaghetti monster too. Your rules = catastrophic outcome. But here you are saying my examples fail even though they meet the same criteria as your god. Where's the reasoning? Do I need to have faith you applied reason because it's unverifiable?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle