This sentence appears nonsensical to me. What does it even mean to refute a city? What are you trying to say?But how would you refute, say, Berkeley?
ETA: Oh, I see you meant George Berkeley, but what would you have me refute?
What I mean by sound, objective evidence is evidence that is free from error, fallacy or misapprehension; logically valid and having true premises; and of, relating to or being an object, phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. So do you have any evidence that approaches those criteria and substantiates the claim that your God exists? If you have no such evidence then please explain how it is reasonable to hold beliefs that depend solely on that unsubstantiated claim?Perhaps we can progress if you explain what you mean by "sound, objective evidence", because it seems to be somewhat of a rubbery criterion. Only by defining that can we discuss whether that kind of evidence exists for Christianity.
Last edited:
Upvote
0