RE: Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?
February 10, 2010 at 8:53 am
My problem is when words are played with, seemingly in order to doge points.
To say there can be valid arguments for God and yet there can be no evidence is a contradiction.
IF there can be no valid arguments then I wonder why fr0d0 sometimes seems to claim there can be - if there actually are then that's valid evidence for his existence so there is no need for "faith" - you actually have reasons and aren't believing on blind faith alone.
If there can be no arguments and blind faith alone is all there is on the matter, then I don't know why fr0d0 sometimes claims arguments or "non-empirical evidence"....
Whether fr0d0's evidence is empirical or not, if he has any then he doesn't just believe on blind faith. And he can't have faith with evidence anyway by the definition I understand - the two are incompatible. And any valid argument whatsoever for God's existence, if indeed valid - is evidence - how couldn't it be? If it wasn't evidence in any way what's valid about it as an argument for God's existence?
To say that you can have logical reasons to believe God exists and you also believe on faith (which is without logical reasons, without evidence) - is oxymoronic isn't it?
EvF
To say there can be valid arguments for God and yet there can be no evidence is a contradiction.
IF there can be no valid arguments then I wonder why fr0d0 sometimes seems to claim there can be - if there actually are then that's valid evidence for his existence so there is no need for "faith" - you actually have reasons and aren't believing on blind faith alone.
If there can be no arguments and blind faith alone is all there is on the matter, then I don't know why fr0d0 sometimes claims arguments or "non-empirical evidence"....
Whether fr0d0's evidence is empirical or not, if he has any then he doesn't just believe on blind faith. And he can't have faith with evidence anyway by the definition I understand - the two are incompatible. And any valid argument whatsoever for God's existence, if indeed valid - is evidence - how couldn't it be? If it wasn't evidence in any way what's valid about it as an argument for God's existence?
To say that you can have logical reasons to believe God exists and you also believe on faith (which is without logical reasons, without evidence) - is oxymoronic isn't it?
EvF
