Reasons

[Edwardo Piet]

Not empirical evidence. So you're saying that valid reasoning = evidence?

If there's any valid reason to believe in God, that isn't just subjective and for you personally, then how can that not count as evidence? If you are not just speaking of you but saying there are valid reasons to believe that God actually exists in this universe and that that would be true for everyone..?
If you are only speaking of you - then I think that's a contradiction because I swear you said earlier that you are not just saying that 'God' is 'true for you' but that he's also true for everyone else..right?

But if you say there are valid reasons to believe God actually exists in this universe- for everyone that would be - then those valid reasons would have to count as evidence right? If they were actually valid reasons to believe that God does indeed exist, in reality - and not just on your own head.

No. I say that I believe that God exists. I can claim nothing.

All I want is to ask you now is how these reasons are at all valid - if they are not evidence in any shape or form of God's existence then how on earth are they valid? And if they are valid then how don't they count as evidence? Either there is evidence of God or there isn't. If you say there is no evidence then basically it's just another way of saying no valid reasons.
If, as you say, there ARE valid reasons - then that would count as evidence even if it may not be empricial evidence as you say.

If there really ARE valid reasons to believe that God actually exists in reality then THAT'S EVIDENCE.

If there AREN'T then that's obviously not evidence.

So I'd like to hear these 'valid reasons' and if it's not so personal that it only applies to you in your own head. If these reasons are not valid then it's not evidence and if it's not evidence then it's not a valid reason!

Either it counts towards the likelihood of God's existence or it doesn't - if it doesn't then it's not a valid reason to believe in his existence, and it's not evidence.

Unless we're not talking about the probability and possibility of God and only what goes on in your own head and what's "true for you"..?

So what is you evidence (non-empirical I assume) OR - valid reasons to believe that God actually exists in this universe? (In other words, evidence...if it's actually a valid reason to believe in his existence in reality)

So it's not a wager or anything like that (as you say you reject) - it's an actual valid reason to believe in his existence i.e - evidence.

I can't say objectively (factually) that God exists. No one can, as it's impossible. A ridiculous question.

You can say God exists objectively - you don't have to claim he absolutely definitely exists and that we 'KNOW' this.

If you are saying he actually exists objectively in reality - you can say this, but I would ask for your valid reasons to believe this that also applies to others (i.e, your evidence).

If you are NOT saying he exists objectively - only subjectively and that it's 'true for you' that he exists - then what can I say? Anything can be 'true' in your own head. I just wonder why you would believe God in your own head and NOT say he actually exists objectively - but he only exists subjectively in you personally or others who believe?

Isn't it a lot more probable that God doesn't exist and people are mistaken that he DOES exist in reality but only for CERTAIN people?

Or is it also more probable that he only exists subjectively as in - in the IMAGINATION of people who believe in him?

If you indeed DON'T say he exists objectively - and are only saying he exists for YOU - or others who believe - then how does that work? Does God actually exist or not?

So do you NOT say he actually exists objecively? What, he exists for some and not for others? And in which case, what evidence or valid reasons do you have to believe that he exists for you or others who believe rather than it just being your imagination - what actual valid reasons do you have? If it's just in your mind and you indeed do not say he objectively exists?....because that would be 'a ridiculous question'? As you say?

So... not so. Your understanding of my position is still incorrect. What I'm saying isn't rocket science EvF, it's very simple. How can you be an atheist when you don't understand what it is you're not accepting?

You say one thing and then another. You say that there can be no evidence of God - but then on the other hand you say there can be - just not emprical.

And you say there are valid reasons to believe God actually exists but that this is NOT evidence.

I on the other hand am asking for one simple thing evidence you say there can be be no evidence/no empirical evidence...

So I am asking for valid non-emprical evidence - or these valid reasons of yours... - which if actually valid reasons for believing in the actual existence of "God" - then that would count as evidence. If they're invalid then it's NOT evidence.

Are there any more VALID reasons for your God, according to you - that applies not just in your own head personally - than there are for Santa, the FSM or Zeus etc? And if then that - counting as valid reasons to beleive he, God, is more likely to exist - in other words counts as evidence.

If you do not believe there are any more valid reasons to believe God exists than them - then why on earth do you believe? And then obviously there is no more evidence for him than Zeus, the FSM, Santa, etc.
If there are valid reasons to believe in God's existence then that is evidence. What is this evidence?

If there aren't valid reasons to believe in God's existence then this doesn't count as evidence.
What are your valid reasons? /Evidence whether non-empricial or whatever?
And how is there any more evidence/ valid reasons for God than Zeus/FSM/Santa exactly?
They're all absurd claims with no evidence.

And by the way - no, I know EXACTLY what I am rejecting. I am rejecting God as in any supernatural creator(s)/designer(s)/ and I am also rejecting any supernatural being/anything supernatural.

EvF