(September 4, 2009 at 4:15 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Why I believe is due to the promises of believing.. the positive effect of that.How is that rational? If you thought in the past and it was rational and promised, what good does the promising do? If it turns out not to be rational, are you just going to believe anyway because you promised? And how are you even going to do that, if you genuinely don't think it's rational, wouldn't you then be not believing but feigning belief? And if you aren't going to believe if you later think that your belief is rational, why bother 'promising' in the first place?
Quote:I asked you what proof would make you accept that there was a God, and you could think of none. That is because there can be none. Nothing would satisfy us that God existed, because that would be an impossibility, given the criteria that being would have to fulfill.
And this is all irrelevant to my point of course. As I've said, I don't care whether there can be evidence or not, I just don't understand why you believe without any. I wish to understand this.
Quote:So it's not only logical to not require evidence, it's naturally impossible.If it's impossible, still..why believe? I don't see why you should believe without evidence? To believe without evidence is to believe without support for that belief, that's irrational, right?
Quote: If it is impossible to formulate a requirement of proof for you, how can you say it's illogical to believe without proof?? Proof obviously has no place here.
I can say it because it's completely irrelevant whether it's possible or not for there to be proof. That doesn't make believing without it rational whatsoever. How is belief without evidence, ever rational? The fact there can't be evidence does not make it rational to believe! On the contrary. If anything it makes it more irrational, the fact God is unfalsifiable and can't be proven whatsoever, would mean it would be ludicrous to just go on and believe in him anyway.
EvF
