Are you demanding scientific evidence for a metaphysical discussion?
No I'm asking for reasonable responses to a few common sense observations.
But Cofty, your idea of what is reasonable repeatedly appeals to the scientific method. Your materialist worldview is not consistent, but arbitrary. You borrow from the Christian worldview in order to attack it. For instance, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you, a stable belief in what is reasonable is inappropriate where you claim that your reason (and existence) was born out of spontaneous appearance (a miracle), chance, disorder, mutation and social pressures alone.
Reason and logic are the same everywhere regardless of these conditions. Why? And, why would you accept them to be so if they are evolving, like you? And, if they are not evolving anymore, at what point did your reasoned logic "arrive" to where you are now and how do you know it wont evolve in the future making your current logic nonsense? Your position opens up a litany of more questions than satisfying answers.
Like it or not, the Christian worldview is consistent. I can trust the rules of logic and reason because I am made in the image of the eternal, unchanging First Cause. Since God "changeth not" I have a reasonable basis for logic & morals and not situational, arbitrary & inconsistent positions.
The one paltry attempt you did make to directly address the problem was truly pathetic.
Invective like this is a sign of fear & desperation. No need for that. Your belief system is duly noted and well documented on this forum.
I have been trying to think of an example to illustrate the absurdity of arbitrary treatment of evidence.
** If an orphan child presented himself, who would think that just because his father in unknown that the father MUST NOT exist?
Conversely, would only children where the father presented himself, be viewed as having a father?
