Views beyond Atheism

[Edwardo Piet]

No I think NE Evidence is just confusing. Especially when you keep using it (seemingly) interchangeably with 'evidence'. I can't follow which you're referring to. Hellish confusing as we agree (I thought) that evidence was impossible.

Nothing could give us cause to believe beyond doubt that God actually existed. That whole holy grail of yours is a mirage.

I don't think 'reasoning' is confusing term at all.

I'm not the one being interchangeable. That's the WHOLE POINT. That's entirely why I am using the term..

Now again you've said that we 'agree that there can be no evidence'. I haven't agreed that. And at times, nor have you...

You HAVE said (like now) that there can be evidence. BUT you have ALSO said before that there can be just not emprical evidence. So all I'M saying is, where is the NON-empirical evidence then?

Because the thing is you are saying I'm using NE evidence and evidence interchangeably - but I shouldn't have to really! Because evidence COVERS NE evidence. Because I am not specifying empirical and I have said many times that I am happy with: evidence of ANY form.

You now say again that there can be no evidence. But before you have said that there CAN be but it's non-emprical.

And I have said that if your 'reasons' are at all VALID to the question of God's actual EXISTIENCE then they WOULD count as evidence of SOME form. Non-emprical we assume, since God is outside the 'empirical realm'.

You have also said very recently, elsewhere; that you are not concerned with God's ACTUAL EXISTENCE.

But do you believe he actually EXISTS or NOT? If you do, why? Do you have no valid reasons? In which case you admit that you are believing entirely irrationally?

OR DO you have valid reasons to believe he actually EXISTS? In which case, that WOULD count as evidence (as I have said)...NE evidence yes we have agreed (since God is outside the 'empirical realm).

So...where is the NE evidence?? Because this 'reasoning' (as I have explained) would have to count of evidence of SOME form (NE evidence I think we have agreed?) otherwise the reasons are valid to the actual question.

And if you are not at all interested in the question, then you admit that you believe in God without any valid reasons to believe he actually exists, therefore you admit to believing in him rationally yes?

In which case would it be something like; that you'd rather believe in a delusion if it INSPIRES you than the truth if it's saddening (I'm certain you don't believe that but all the other alternatives seem ridiculous too; where is the NE evidence?)

Where is the NE evidence then..???

EvF