(August 27, 2009 at 9:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(August 27, 2009 at 9:17 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: at least when I'm repetitive I try to explain myself.LMAO
"1. Evidence is valid to belief by definition"
But then we know you define belief as 'absolute knowledge'. Which is the opposite to what our belief in the Christian God necessitates. AGAIN - REPETITION - NOTHING NEW - BLIND IGNORANCE ON YOUR PART OF THE BASIC CONCEPT BEING PRESENTED TO YOU.
No belief is not absolute knowledge. Belief is completely seperate to knowledge. You can believe in things that don't exist, and therefore you don't absolutely know exist....
Like on Adrian's scale of certaintly/knowledge/belief, knowledge and belief are seperate.
I'm not talking about absolute knowledge. I'm talking if you believe X or Y is or isn't true, and/or if it does or doesn't exist.....
Evidence is valid to belief by definition....if you care about the rationality of the belief, because as I've said many times - Evidence is that which gives credence to a belief.
And no, I'm not blind to your concept. Because your concept is on the one hand that evidence is irrelevant to the God belief, which is just special pleading on your part, and nothing to give any remotely serious thought whatsoever on my part....and on the other hand you say evidence is possible through logic, because you say proof is possible through it, and as I said - proof is the strongest evidence can be!
Yes i'm repeating myself....because it seems that you have repeatedly missed me pointing out that you contradict yourself when you keep slipping from 'no evidence', to supposedly valid 'reasoning' or even 'logical proof'..
Finally, I have a request:
Could you stop with the retarded usage of caps please?
EvF
