No verifiable evidence is the Christian position

[Silver]

How I know is by using reason.

What you have deluded yourself into thinking is reason is quite the opposite outside of your little fantasy realm.

[downbeatplumb]

Reasoned from what? Since it (whatever it is) is undetectable, then on what basis do we reason its existence?

From questions that cannot be answered in any other way, such as purpose. Humanity has consistently and independently identified the subject.

Why would there be a purpose?

Silly idea.

"why are we here, because were here"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VzAKpPJTqQ

[Mister Agenda]

I've always thought the definitive answer to the 'why are we here?' question was 'why shouldn't we be?'.

[Edwardo Piet]

"What are we here for?"

To post on the atheist forums until we go and do something else.

"How come we are here?"

We got here through motivation.

[fr0d0]

It's my preference because truth couldn't lead me to any other choice.

If you didn't have any other choice, then it's not a preference. That means I was right before in saying you believe because you think it's the truth, and truth has nothing to do with preference.

I cannot believe that which I don't reason to be true.

Which once again shows you're not believing out of preference. Contradictions all 'round here...

#1 & #2 - yes I've always said that. I'm backing up what you've said to whateverist above. Please show me where you think I've contradicted myself.

---

How is something proof if it's unverifiable? Proof by definition is what *makes* something verified or not.

I think your challenge in our discussion at hand is to explain why you would put faith in something unverifiable. You can't know if God exists, therefore you're actually not even justified in saying he's unverifiable. That's an assumption that's begging the question. This is why it's nonsensical for you to dismiss the gnomes that grow my grass on a whim because you effectively have a double standard. Fallacies aren't considered good reasoning.

And by the way, how do you know that your god's undetectable attribute doesn't stem from pure non-existence?

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. Where is the fallacy?

Science acknowledges non verifiable evidence. You don't. Should I be worried?

Once more.... what separates fantasy from reasoned conjecture is reason.

(I think I've covered everything intriguer quoted)

[FallentoReason]

#1 & #2 - yes I've always said that. I'm backing up what you've said to whateverist above. Please show me where you think I've contradicted myself.

This isn't really an important matter in our discussion, so I'll just believe you. 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-.

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.

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"*.

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.

[Faith No More]

Science acknowledges non verifiable evidence.

Can you give an example?

[FallentoReason]

[/unverifiable entities]
[/thread]

[fr0d0]

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

Science acknowledges non verifiable evidence.

Can you give an example?

See Richard Dawkins who made that claim.

[Whateverist]

Silly humans. Always trying to remove themselves from the equation. Of course preference -or desire if you like- plays a role in turning a selection of the 'truth' into a consciously chosen belief. There are no observerless observations and no significance independent of someone to whom it is important. Beliefs are always motivated whether by automatic pilot or through conscious selection.