Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within

Welcome to the real world John. Believers, as is implicit in the very terms 'believers', will believe that what they "see" and "know" regarding their god to be real.However simply believing that something is true in no way demonstrates that it actually is.You are back to your circular argument again John - "Those who beieve will have reason to believe" etc. etc. Those who BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus BELIEVE that they will receive exactly what God promises to those who BELIEVE.Round and round and round we go...............

I would love to believe that this is true. But I have little faith that you will not resurrect the same circular argument elsewhere at some point in the future.It is too deeply ingrained for you not to. Well your argument has died and has been judged wanting. Given that you seem to consider it appropriate for me to burn in hell for all eternity because of the outrageous demand that I be given reason to believe something before actually believing in it.............well...."Blessings" just seems an odd thing to say.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So are you saying that you do need empirical evidence to conclude God?Or not?If you would continue to believe even if it could be definitley demonstrated that life/DNA/whatever could form in the absence of God then why is any of this relevant to belief?If you would cease to believe in God if it could be definitley demonstrated that life/DNA/whatever could form in the absence of God then is it really justified to call you belief in God 'faith'?That is the question at hand here.

Can you conceive of, even hypothetically, a method of determining this?Does every aspect of the universe imply design?If not how can we distinguish between that which is designed and that which is not?If we construct a scale can you give examples of the following:1) Something that is definitely designed
2) Something that is probably designed but might not be
3) Something which may or may not be designed equally
4) Something that is probably not designed but arguably could be
5) Something which displays no evidence of design at allUnless we can recognise definite design over the appearance of design objectively any notion that apparent design is evidence of actual design is inherently subjective wouldn't you agree?So how can we tell design from non-design?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So can you give me an example of something that is not designed?I don't see how we can conclude design unless we have an objective means of determining what is designed and what is not?

Your knowledge of biology may not be relevant to the actual truth of the claim but it is indisputably relevant to your ability to recognise or ascertain the truth or otherwise of the claim.No?

The foundation of wisdom is knowledge.If you have no knowledge of a subject you cannot wisely apply that knowledge.Biologists make predictions on the basis of their knowledge. Predictions which have been and are being verified.Thus a degree of both knowledge and wisdom has been objectively demonstrated through the discovery of new evidence based on the knowledge of prior evidence.You claim little knowledge yet great wisdom and yet can demonstrate neither in any objective terms.Thus your position must be considered undeniably inferior.

No. Most of what you say is just as nonsensical too. You can only wisely put together knowledge if you have that knowledge in the first place.You apparently, by your own declaration, do not have that knowledge.Both the knowledge and and the ability to put that knowledge together wisely have been repeatedly demonstrated by the ability of evolutionary science to make predictions and discover new evidence. You can define evidence any damn way you like but if we are unable to make discoveries with the knowledge or methods you propose then they are worthless as a means of understanding and discovering nature.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Have you actually read the OP?It's about the difference between theists who claim that their beliefs are as much the result of of physical evidence as anything else (e.g. Biblical Creationists) and believers who base their beliefs on subjective feelings, experiences etc.But things seem to have moved on somewhat from that in the intervening years.