Reasons

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

He may not be 'true for' others but you believe that God still EXISTS in others reality too right? He doesn't exist in people who believe and not exist in others...
Rather you believe that he exists in reality as a whole, and for everyone - it's just that some don't believe he exists so it's not TRUE for them..right? It might not be 'true for' them, in the sense they don't believe it - but you still believe he EXISTS in reality whether you believe or not - right?

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

Either you are saying there is evidence God exists in reality or not...ok I've established you DO think there is evidence just not empricial evidence - it's just it's confusing because you have said at times that there cannot be evidence - I didn't realize by evidence you ONLY meant 'emprical evidence'.

When I am saying evidence I mean ANY evidence. I do not believe there is ANY real evidence of God - if you therefore, believe that you have some NON-emprical evidence then please by my guest and tell me what it is exactly - I want to know of any evidence, in this discussion, whatever it is.

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.

Well what IS it that you know exactly? What (non-empricial) evidence?
And if the (non-empirical) evidence was valid why on earth would i need faith?

What, I'd need to inject myself with the willingness to believe in absence of evidence in order to believe? If it's a rational belief then I wouldn't need to inject myself with an irrational reason to believe would I(?)

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but... - when exactly did i say that only emprical evidence would be acceptable?
Any evidence is acceptable because evidence is evidence - if the evidence is unaccepable then it's not evidence!
If only counts as evidence if it's valid. It counts as evidence when it's evidence towards something.

I would like to know of any evidence of God - whatever it is - I don't see how non-emprical evidence could count but then I don't know of any empirical evidence either! If you do actually have valid evidence, whatever it is, whether emprical or non-empirical - then I'd like to know of it - because as far as I know there isn't any!

What do you believe is evidence of God's existence whether non-emprical or whatever?

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.

Ok specifics..

I would like to know of what you believe to be evidence of God. I haven't specified empirical - I don't care whether it's non-emprical or emprical - I just wish to know what YOU believe to be evidence of God...
It seems to me now that when I say evidence you often think of empricial evidence. Because like in your thread about evidence of God - you say there can be no evidence.

Now you have made it clear that there CAN be evidence and you DO believe there is in fact evidence it's just not emprical.
I don't care if the evidence you believe that is evidence of God is emprirical or non-emprical...I just want to know of it, whatever you consider to actually count as evidence.

You say it's non-emprical, but you say it counts as evidence - now if it counts as evidence according to you I'd like to know of this (non-empirical in this case) evidence, please.

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

When you say you believe it to be true - if you are just saying this as a personal belief, personal to you and are only talking about what's going on in your own head - then that's not really a claim...
But if you are saying that you believe that God exists in reality, actually exists - then how are you not saying it's true?

You believe it's true - you SAY you believe it's true - you believe and say that God exists in reality not just in your own head - how is that not saying it's true?

Please fill me in on the distinction here.

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

Before you have said there can be 'no evidence of God', as you also said in your thread...
Other times you have said there CAN be - just not emprical evidence.

It seems now that it is clear that whenever you said there can be no evidence you specifically meant emprical evidence.
You also said above that I have said previously that only emprical evidence is acceptable as evidence of God...

I do not believe I have said this? Once again I think that you have thought of 'evidence' to be 'emprical evidence' but I do not believe I specified that only emprical evidence would be acceptable...

Evidence is evidence. If it counts as evidence it counts as evidence - if it's non-emprirical but EVIDENCE then it counts.

I don't care whether it's emprical or not, just that it's evidence - I know of no EMPRICAL evidence of God OR non-emprical evidence of God - I have no idea what would be acceptable because I know of no example...
I just want to know what you believe to be evidence of God's existence whether empircal...or not - I don't care what it is...I just want to know what you believe to be evidence so we can discuss it.
Because you now say that you DO believe there is evidence...ok let's make that clear...

You DO believe there is evidence - you say it's non-empirical - but you DO believe there is evidence...

So I'd like to kno what this evidence you believe to be evidence IS exactly - whether empirical...or not.
If it's non-empirical it doesn't matter I just want to know what it is...you say it's evidence what is this evidence? I want to discuss with you and know whether it really constitutes as evidence.

What exactly IS this non-emprical evidence...and how is it evidence?

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

What is your evidence of God? I am not specifiying emprical so if you say there is none then you contradict yourself.
You now appear to have made it clear that you believe there IS evidence - it's just non-emprical and before when you said "no evidence" you meant no EMPRICAL evidence...

So...: What is the (non-empirical) evidence of God, according to you?

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.

You seem to not understand the reasoning because my reasoning is very simple and I totally understand it.
I do know EXACTLY what side I'm on - I'm on the atheist side, meaning I don't believe in God(s).

What is my reasoning that I say is very simple?
: I know of no evidence of God, so there is no reason to believe he exists.

That's it basically - there is a matter of the improbabilty and the complexity etc, but whatever that is - it basically comes down to in the end - no evidence of God's actual existence.

In the end it's not even a question of "Why believe?" - I don't believe. I can't force myself to believe something exists when I know that I know of no evidence of it's existence - even if I wanted to...
And if I can't and I wanted to - then why bother if it does nothing? And if there is no point and it just lead to frustration - all the more reason to not bother.

I don't believe because I know of no evidence - that's it.

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.

I don't believe in the existence of just anything without evidence...do you?

Why would I treat God any different. I know no evidence of the acutal existence of Santa, the FSM, Zeus and countless other things that lack evidence of their existence and I also know of no evidence of the existence of God - what's the difference?

EvF