Evidence that God exists

[Edwardo Piet]

Let's try & tidy up this salad. The OP was what I was saying you were digressing from.. i.e. a discussion on the idea that faith needed evidence was contradictory. Discussion on the actual existence or not, or what anyone believes or not, is OT IMHO.

I'm using analogies with the existence of God to explain about the evidence vs faith thing if I can.

There is no evidence of the FSM. Its irrational to believe in the FSM because of this.

Same with God. You believe in evidence generally, but not with God.

You started this topic talking about my name and I do indeed think there is a conflict between evidence and faith. I don't think there's necessarily a logical contradiciton though because you can have evidence in some things and not have evidence in others but still believe anyway. I think thats conflicting and sometimes more than others - but I'm not sure whether it's contradictary really?

I don't understand why you would believe in the FSM you see. I know you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster either - but I equally don't understand for exactly the same reasons why you believe in God when you say its not because of evidence but because of 'other reasons'.

How do you know I don't believe in the FSM!?

I don't know. I don't seriously claim to know anything absolutely 100%. I meant know in the usual sense in general conversation and I was just assuming it.

Why, DO you believe in the FSM?

Obviously you don't understand the reasons why, or you'd believe yourself! Reasoning is the methodology though. (I didn't say other reasons, I said 'reasoning'.)

Well its apparently digressing to talk of this special 'reasoning' of yours. And yet if I don't know about it then I can assume that its completely rational to require evidence for God because its the only rational option that I know of. Yet you are arguing the opposite - that its irrational. Your only alternative is your 'reasoning' which you have said is a digression to discuss.

Will you discuss it or not?

To answer that question would totally derail this topic. I hope you can understand.

What's the purpose of this topic then? Your 'reasoning' which you won't discuss because it 'would totally derail this topic' is the only alternative that you are giving for having a rational reason for believing in God. It seems therefore that unless you say what this 'reasoning' is - you explain what your reasons are - then I can only assume that evidence is the only real rational reason.

And yet you are arguing that evidence for God is ridiculous. You won't present the alternative though, because it would: 'derail this topic'.