05-16-2019, 02:44 PM
(05-16-2019, 02:02 PM)Lucidus Wrote: It is most definitely my opinion that there is currently no "evidence" available that would justify belief in any deity. However, I feel you are incorrect to to say that Christians are entirely faith based. While faith is a huge part of the equation. I've been presented with many examples of different types of evidences over the year from Christians, that they use to rationalize their faith. While not empirical in nature, they aren't reliant on merely anecdote or personal testimony either, so they must be evaluated honestly and examined as to their possible veracity.
While God himself may not be demonstrable in any verifiable / detectable way, there have been countless attempts to establish - by way of proposed evidences - that there are also non-faith justifications that help support and strengthen the belief that there is indeed a God. While I haven't yet been convinced by any of these evidences, as they all tend to fall well short of their intended goal, it doesn't mean there are no possible evidences that I could not find intriguing and compelling if presented with. One should not close their mind to future possibilities based on current conclusions.
It may be the case that my inquires only prove to solidify my position that there is no rational reason to believe in a deity of any sort. However, it could also be the case that, at some point in time, I'm presented with an evidence or argument which causes me to doubt my previous conclusions. I know some religious people who feel much the same way. While their current conclusions suggest a God does exist and their faith is justified, they do not discount the possibility of changing their minds based on what they may learn or be presented with in the future.
Where did I write "entirely"? Then you finish the paragraph talking about honesty and veracity while arguing against something I didn't write.
Quote:You seem to be implying that a question shouldn't be asked if one presupposes the answer. How can we ever learn anything new or find out if we're wrong in our assumptions if we avoid questions that we presume we already have the answer to?
Asking for more evidence is not a presupposition. Believing there isn't a god before you review their evidence is a presupposition. I would suggest you're smart enough to know that, too. You're a smart guy.
Quote:I have never asked anyone to prove they "believe" - as I always work under the assumption that they actually do, so I'm not sure what the purposely fallacious response is about.
I ask people if they believe in general, in what they believe specifically and what reasons they have for believing. From those inquiries, I venture into areas of possible evidences, rationales and justifications.
Nowhere in that equation is there a request for one to "prove' that they believe.
.
Fallacious response? I didn't state a belief. I asked you to demonstrate something. So what belief (which I didn't state) was mistaken?
How do we "prove" a hypothesis until it becomes an accepted theory? By accumulating a mountain of overwhelming evidence that suggests it is true and other competing hypotheses are incorrect until the evidence suggests another hypothesis is correct. You never used the word "prove" verbatim, but let's be honest with each other, that's exactly what you're doing with your calls for more evidence after you have dismissed "countless" attempts.
I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you to demonstrate something. Basically, show me some evidence. I wanted you to demonstrate something so I could believe in it. Because how can I believe in something if it can't be demonstrated? Think about it.
