A God?

[Edwardo Piet]

It's because the first time I misunderstood you and thought we were doing it the other way around. i.e: Replacing 'reasoning' with 'NE evidence'. The rest of the time I have simply been explaining how I misunderstood you/you misunderstood me and that I think NE evidence is better (or just evidence if you can understand I am INCLUDING NE!! and 'reasons' therefore) than 'reasoning' and 'reasons' because they are so ambiguous; and if we are actually adressing the question: "Does God EXIST?" - then these 'reasons' WOULD count as (NE) evidence anyway!!

I have already answered the rest you said already *sigh*.

As I have explained if this 'reasoning' is valid then it WOULD count as SOME form of evidence, and we have agreed that would be NE.

You have also said at times that you DO believe there CAN be evidence of God, it just couldn't be empirical; it would have to be NON-empirical (NE).

So where IS this NE evidence?

And now have you just said you DON'T care if God actually exists? Then why do you BELIEVE that he does? If the 'reasons' you have ARE indeed VALID to believing that God actually exists then they would count as (NE) evidence - if not, and you believe anyway! - Then that's plain irrational.

How can you believe something actually exists while admitting you have no valid reasons to believe so? (if you do have valid reasons, it would count as evidence since evidence is about validating actual existence (NE included)).

EvF