RE: No verifiable evidence is the Christian position
August 20, 2013 at 3:58 am
(This post was last modified: August 20, 2013 at 4:08 am by fr0d0.)
(August 19, 2013 at 9:29 am)FallentoReason Wrote:(August 19, 2013 at 4:01 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It's my preference because truth couldn't lead me to any other choice.If you didn't have any other choice, then it's not a preference. That means I was right before in saying you believe because you think it's the truth, and truth has nothing to do with preference.
Quote: I cannot believe that which I don't reason to be true.Which once again shows you're not believing out of preference. Contradictions all 'round here...
#1 & #2 - yes I've always said that. I'm backing up what you've said to whateverist above. Please show me where you think I've contradicted myself.
(August 19, 2013 at 9:29 am)FallentoReason Wrote: How is something proof if it's unverifiable? Proof by definition is what *makes* something verified or not.
I think your challenge in our discussion at hand is to explain why you would put faith in something unverifiable. You can't know if God exists, therefore you're actually not even justified in saying he's unverifiable. That's an assumption that's begging the question. This is why it's nonsensical for you to dismiss the gnomes that grow my grass on a whim because you effectively have a double standard. Fallacies aren't considered good reasoning.
And by the way, how do you know that your god's undetectable attribute doesn't stem from pure non-existence?
If we had verifiable proof then we wouldn't need faith, essentially an intellectual assent and commitment. I can believe no other because I find the logic compelling. Where is the fallacy?
Science acknowledges non verifiable evidence. You don't. Should I be worried?
Once more.... what separates fantasy from reasoned conjecture is reason.
(I think I've covered everything intriguer quoted)
