A Book?

[Edwardo Piet]

There can be no evidence but that doesn't mean that that's a reason to believe. That's a reason NOT to believe.

If there COULD be evidence and there WAS, then you'd have a good reason to believe.

Since there is no evidence, why believe? If you are to believe because there can't be evidence then by that logic you'd believe in fucking anything and everything unprovable and unfalsifiable.

There can be no evidence of the FSM either, or Zeus, or Santa, or Russell's Teapot by that logic. So by that logic also - if you believe in God because there's no evidence then you'd believe in them too.

If there not being able to be any evidence in GOD= reason to believe then the same applies to all THOSE things too (and much much much more, on and on).

There's no reason to believe those things because there's no evidence. The fact there CAN'T be evidence because they happen to be unprovable and unfalsifiable does NOT make it a good reason to believe in them! And that includes God. I mean that would be like saying the fact there CAN'T be any evidence IS evidence! Totally nonsensical. Non-sequitur.

EvF