Yes it makes no sense to require empirical evidence for God, because you couldn't tell if it really counts towards God or not anyway, etc (i.e it could just be an alien, etc, etc).
BUT - to BELIEVE you still need evidence. Whether you can have it or not. You STILL need a REASON to BELIEVE (i.e. evidence) before you can rationally believe something..
So despite the fact it wouldn't count as evidence, you still need a reason to believe. You still need evidence of SOME form - whether empirical would count or not.
The fact there can be no (at least empirical) evidence whatsoever - doesn't give you a reason to believe...
No evidence is not a reason to believe!! That's like saying no evidence=evidnece!! WTF?
SO: whether there can be empirical evidence of God or not.. - you still need SOME form of evidence. There being no evidence is not a rational reason to believe.
As I said - that would be like saying the absence of evidence=evidence! No evidence of God is not a reason to believe - it's still a reason NOT to - regardless of whether there CAN be evidence or a rational reason to believe or not.
Because the thing is fr0d0 you seem to keep mixing something up here. If there can be no evidence of God - that doesn't mean that we don't require it to BELIEVE.
To require evidence for God is one thing...to require evidence for God to BELIEVE in him is another. Evidence is indeed not absolutely required for God - but to rationally believe in him it is - if there is no evidence, why believe? How could you believe and be rational without there being SOME form of real evidence?
EvF
BUT - to BELIEVE you still need evidence. Whether you can have it or not. You STILL need a REASON to BELIEVE (i.e. evidence) before you can rationally believe something..
So despite the fact it wouldn't count as evidence, you still need a reason to believe. You still need evidence of SOME form - whether empirical would count or not.
The fact there can be no (at least empirical) evidence whatsoever - doesn't give you a reason to believe...
No evidence is not a reason to believe!! That's like saying no evidence=evidnece!! WTF?
SO: whether there can be empirical evidence of God or not.. - you still need SOME form of evidence. There being no evidence is not a rational reason to believe.
As I said - that would be like saying the absence of evidence=evidence! No evidence of God is not a reason to believe - it's still a reason NOT to - regardless of whether there CAN be evidence or a rational reason to believe or not.
Because the thing is fr0d0 you seem to keep mixing something up here. If there can be no evidence of God - that doesn't mean that we don't require it to BELIEVE.
To require evidence for God is one thing...to require evidence for God to BELIEVE in him is another. Evidence is indeed not absolutely required for God - but to rationally believe in him it is - if there is no evidence, why believe? How could you believe and be rational without there being SOME form of real evidence?
EvF
