Yes - because you have said that you think there is some NON-empirical evidence right?
When you said the its "ridiculous for the existence of God to require evidence" you have said you are talking about EMPIRICAL evidence.
So I would like you to give what you think is NON-empirical evidence. I'd like you to back up your assertion. We certainly don't have to 'prove that it isn't so' or 'show otherwise'. You claim it is ridiculous for God to require evidence - but have now said you are only talking about EMPIRICAL evidence - so I'd like to know of some of this NON-empirical evidence that you believe there is?
We don't have to prove it isn't so. The burden of proof is on you. I don't see why God shouldn't require empirical evidence for existence, as anything else does.
Yes it may be silly because there obviously isn't any empirical evidence - a good reason to think he doesn't exist until shown otherwise. If there's no empical evidence of any other claims of existence, never mind such big claims, it requires evidence. So why on earth should God be exempt?
I don't think he should. What is the evidence of God according to you? NON-empirical or otherwise. The bible is not a magic book and that is not evidence in any shape or form. Anecdote is not evidence. Saying God exists because in a holy book that is supposed to be inspired by God himself is completely circular logic.
EvF
When you said the its "ridiculous for the existence of God to require evidence" you have said you are talking about EMPIRICAL evidence.
So I would like you to give what you think is NON-empirical evidence. I'd like you to back up your assertion. We certainly don't have to 'prove that it isn't so' or 'show otherwise'. You claim it is ridiculous for God to require evidence - but have now said you are only talking about EMPIRICAL evidence - so I'd like to know of some of this NON-empirical evidence that you believe there is?
We don't have to prove it isn't so. The burden of proof is on you. I don't see why God shouldn't require empirical evidence for existence, as anything else does.
Yes it may be silly because there obviously isn't any empirical evidence - a good reason to think he doesn't exist until shown otherwise. If there's no empical evidence of any other claims of existence, never mind such big claims, it requires evidence. So why on earth should God be exempt?
I don't think he should. What is the evidence of God according to you? NON-empirical or otherwise. The bible is not a magic book and that is not evidence in any shape or form. Anecdote is not evidence. Saying God exists because in a holy book that is supposed to be inspired by God himself is completely circular logic.
EvF
