(January 27, 2010 at 9:59 pm)theVOID Wrote:(January 27, 2010 at 9:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I've been around this tree with Evie quite a lot of times VOID... that he can't muster up a grain of intelligence to apply to what we've said to each other is down to him. I'm doing him no favours thinking for him.. he has to start thinking for himself at some point. I'm not going to explain the difference to him yet again when he didn't fucking get it the last 50 times I took the trouble to tell him. There's stubborn then there's ignorance.
Back to you... have you worked it out yet?
Answer my questions then.
1) Without evidence or logic supporting your claims, how do you rationalise your ideas in your own mind?
2) By what standard do you verify your beliefs? Is it experiential revelation/insight or just faith in a doctrine?
3) If it is personal insight / revelation then how do you rationalise your revelations as more true than contradictory insights from other people who used the same standard of verification?
4) If it is faith in a doctrine how do you know your faith is well placed? If you use no evidence or logic to verify your position then how can you be sure the doctrines of the Bible are in any way accurate in any way?
(January 27, 2010 at 10:08 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're going into bullshit territory VOID. Answer your question why? You seem to want to change subject entirely.1) 'False assumption' is not an appropriate answer. The question was "Without evidence or logic supporting your claims, how[b] do you [b]rationalize your ideas in your own mind?"
1) false assumption
2) based on Q1 so void
3) ditto
4) ditto
Back to the actual question... how do you conclude that there should be evidence for God?
2-4) Evasion. Define your beliefs.