Reasons

[fr0d0]

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?

God is only true for me because I believe it to be so. He can't be true for anyone else unless they also believe it. The God I know is the same God as the one other Christians believe in.

Like I've said, there cannot be fact for the affirmative. But then the evidence is more than opinion.

If you could know exactly what I know then you would have REASON to believe that there is a God. Still you wouldn't NEED to believe, you would still need FAITH to believe.

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.

I think that's a good point. Even though I cannot know, and no one can; what I'm professing faith to is something that is in fact, a hard reality.

Maybe it's like scientific reasoning.. The best reasoning for any individual may construe God's existence and subsidiary details. Any other reasoning may come to light that wouldsupercede this reasoning.

Thoughts of faith are alive in this way and tested to be relevant as time passes.

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!

You now seem to be saying that non empirical evidence would be valid for you. That seems to be a shift for you against your previous stance that only empirical evidence would be acceptable.

As we talk and explore reasoning on here(this forum) I'm telling you my reasoning. You need to quiz me on those specifics rather than being generalist here. Generally I can only tell you the principle, as I've done here.

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.

No I can't. I can say that I believe he exists but I can say nothing factually, unless I had factual proof. I've already established that there can be no factual proof.

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).

I'm saying that I believe this to be true, Is this the same as saying that it's true?

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.

Not on the other hand at all. There can be no empirical evidence. There can be non empirical evidence. You and I have already established that between us, or I really am wasting my time if you don't remember.

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

Not 'empirical evidence'. You have to be specific. Dawkins is!

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.

Like I said above.. lets get specific and find out.

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.

But you don't understand any of the reasoning. You've planted your flag on one side of the fence before knowing which side you agree with.

Obviously there are drawbacks to that strategy. The big one for me is that you can't now look at the problem objectively. You have to make the evidence fit your answer.

---

All it debunks is the mindless assertion that empirical evidence is required to prove Gods existence when talking about Christian faith

Is this your answer. Then make it more understandble to me then, becuase I don't really know what you mean. You didn't do that last time I asked.

But I find this to not fully answer my question why you believe there is a God and not other gods. Also I don't know what empirical evidence there is also you haven't prestended the theory how God exist.

Anyway this hasn't really to do with the thread. It's about why we are atheists. But if you could give me that "precise answer" mentioned, or repeat once more, would appriciate it so we can end this discussion quickly in this thread. If we should continue should we continue on another thread wich suite this discussion.

I'm sorry Giff I realise you're frustration. I have no magic pill to make it better. I'm repeating myself all the time. If you can't understand what I'm saying then I'm sorry. I don't know how to make it clear to you.

This whole discussion has and is happening over on the evidence thread. Maybe read that and see if that helps.