(July 28, 2010 at 1:07 am)tackattack Wrote: 1-purely by reasonable and logical faith based off of a cycle of occurences? lots of variables... especially for usefullness. However the biggest (I'm assuming your point) bias of subjecivity and personal incredulity can't be eliminated completely.
So what good is it if it's possible that you're willingly but unknowingly rationalizing it? How would you determine that this is not the case?
(July 28, 2010 at 1:07 am)tackattack Wrote: 2-It is subjectively demonstratable, which is appropriate for a subjective evidence and subjective proof leading to a personal viewof God. Aside from stepping outside our universe and seeing God (impossibility) this is objective as it can get. It does NOT however limit it's usefullness within this universe to not be able to completely objectify something because of the unattainability of absolute proofs.
Replace "God" with "Underpants Gnomes" and your argument is just as valid. Do you understand why such an argument is useless in a rational discussion?
My blog: The Usual Rhetoric
