RE: No verifiable evidence is the Christian position
August 21, 2013 at 11:33 am
(This post was last modified: August 21, 2013 at 11:46 am by fr0d0.)
(August 20, 2013 at 6:16 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I just don't think you should have been using the word "preference" *at all* when saying why you believe. If you believe because you only believe in things that are true, then your preferences are -irrelevant-.
Once again, I used it because you did, backing up your point, that it isn't relevant.
(August 20, 2013 at 6:16 am)FallentoReason Wrote:Quote: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.
What logic? Why do you believe in your god but not the gnomes making my grass grow? Show me this mythical logic that tells you putting faith in one but not the other is reasonable.
Pay attention to what's said here every day, trying not to look through your atheist coloured spectacles. ergo: I don't need to state it yet again. You already know it and deny it. /end
(August 20, 2013 at 6:16 am)FallentoReason Wrote:Quote: Where is the fallacy?
That as far as I know, you rule out unverifiable lawn-growing gnomes but you don't rule out the unverifiable Judeo-Christian god. Special pleading/a double standard is in play. Why that is, I haven't been given a reason. The only reason I can think of is that you somehow (***) know your god is *not* unverifiable because of non-existence and my gnomes *are* unverifiable because of non-existence. To get to such a conclusion though requires more than what I'll have to call blind faith. There's a degree of proof involved that would return the value of existence/non-existence regarding these two entities, and thus you can reasonably say sentence (***). Until you provide this degree of proof, you're going to have to accept two conclusions: (1) your faith isn't justified and (2) believing in gnomes, dragons, the tooth fairy, santa claus, the spaghetti monster etc. are all just as justified as believing in your god *from your own "logic"*.
You're repeating your insane questions without listening to the answer. As soon as you respond, I will answer any new points you want to make.
(August 20, 2013 at 6:16 am)FallentoReason Wrote:Quote:Science acknowledges non verifiable evidence. You don't. Should I be worried?
The crux of the scientific method is that an experiment can only be done if the hypothesis is falsifiable. How an hypothesis can be falsified with non-verifiable evidence is a mystery greater than the combined faith of humanity in gods.
I'm not worried.
(August 20, 2013 at 9:41 am)Faith No More Wrote:(August 20, 2013 at 3:58 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Science acknowledges non verifiable evidence.
Can you give an example?
See Richard Dawkins who made that claim.
