Chris (from Oz) said...
Why do we need to account for evidence's utility and existance (sic) ?
Just stop a second and listen to yourself. Why do you need to account for its *existence*? Are you looking for explanations or not? Interested in truth or not?
Tell you what, though...
Why do we need to account for Jesus Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead?
Answer me that and you may have your own answer.
There are many mysteries. Why can't this be one ?
This sure seems to me a convenient escape hatch. You come in here all sure that you can just throw around "prove it!"s about MY position, and you have less than no evidence for your own position. Typical atheist move, actually.
Prove that evidence's utility and existance (sic) must be accounted for.
It is apparently a fruitless exercise for someone with such a powerful faith as yours. You put the greatest faith-healer to shame with your blind confidence in the power of your convictions. It's a bit embarrassing.
Atheists, gather 'round - this guy is no friend of your position either.
A theistic God is certainly not the only explanation for evidence. And doubtful it's the best.
How could you possibly know that, since you were, one sentence ago, strongly questioning whether evidence even needs to be accounted for. You need to figure out WHETHER it needs to be accounted for before we can deal with this question.
Using logic and reason, which we both agree is useful.
I don't agree that they are useful on atheism, no. I'm waiting for your argument.