The Lords Prayer advert now banned in cinemas.

[SWP's back]

An incoherent first sentence followed by the Pavlovian atheist smear.
Difficult to engage rationally with that response.

I'm sure acting or thinking rationally would be a stretch for you at the best of times.

Old dogs and all that...

 

[George Hannah]

I'm sure acting or thinking rationally would be a stretch for you at the best of times.
Old dogs and all that...

Thanks for indulging me, I'll just get back to my bone then.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Thanks for indulging me, I'll just get back to my bone then.

dirty sod.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

An incoherent first sentence followed by the Pavlovian atheist smear.
Difficult to engage rationally with that response.

Come on now George. You can't have your pavlova cake and eat it too. Rational engagement and Religious Faith are incompatable.

 

[George Hannah]

.. Rational engagement and Religious Faith are incompatable.

Apparently so on here but one lives in hope.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

Apparently so on here but one lives in hope.

So you have faith, in spite of all evidence to the contrary!

;-)

 

[George Hannah]

So you have faith, in spite of all evidence to the contrary!;-)

Any rational person should find the evidence for the existence of God overwhelming. Rationality itself is predicated on the fact.

 

[Matty]

Any rational person would find the evidence for the existence of God overwhelming. Rationality itself is predicated on the fact.

No, no they wouldn't.

Any rational person, if we're going to start casting aspersions based upon belief here, would decide that blindly believing in the existence of something without a single, solitary, piece of physical evidence was unfathomable.

We could go down the rabbit hole of what actually qualifies as "evidence" at this point but there's little point. Evidence is, essentially, the availability of facts or information that indicate whether a belief is valid. If there were sufficient facts and/or information to validate the existence of God then, by default, the concept of "faith" would surely no longer exist. You can't have faith in the existence of something if, as you say, "any rational person would find the evidence for the existence of God overwhelming". Faith, surely, is the belief in something despite there being no real proof, evidence, or rational reasoning behind the belief.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

We're wasting our time.
It's like trying to discuss a film review with a cat.

 

[George Hannah]

We could go down the rabbit hole of what actually qualifies as "evidence" at this point but there's little point. Evidence is, essentially, the availability of facts or information that indicate whether a belief is valid. If there were sufficient facts and/or information to validate the existence of God then, by default, the concept of "faith" would surely no longer exist. You can't have faith in the existence of something if, as you say, "any rational person would find the evidence for the existence of God overwhelming". Faith, surely, is the belief in something despite there being no real proof, evidence, or rational reasoning behind the belief.

You've lost yourself down the rabbit hole immediately by failing to understand that evidence for God is not confined to scientifically measurable fact although it includes that variety. For me there are no irrefutable scientific or logical arguments which establish the certainty that God exists, as you say that would make our moral choices merely prudential and empty them of significance. If, however, the laws of logic which underlie reasoned thought are to be reliable they cannot be the 'product of a fortuitous concourse of atoms'. Evidence of our existence, consciousness, moral instincts and experience all contribute to a warranted belief in God.