@ Fr0d0...
How many times fr0d0? You HAVE said that you DO have evidence/there CAN be evidence. But you've said that it just ISN'T empirical.
So where is the NON-empirical evidence then?
OTHER times you keep banging on as if there can be no evidence at all. BUT...if there's no evidence at all then there can be no valid 'reasons' (that you speak of) to believe God actually EXISTS...BECAUSE - If these reasons WERE valid reasons to believe that God actually EXISTS then they WOULD count as (SOME form of) evidence.
Valid reasons to believe that God indeed does actually EXIST would= evidence. I am not asking for empirical evidence I am asking for ANY evidence AT ALL.
We've already established that "God" is outside of the empirical realm so EMPIRICAL evidence isn't required - but there has to be SOME evidence if there's a valid reason to believe God actually exists.
So which is it? Are these 'reasons' of yours valid reasons to believe that God actually EXISTS (IOW: NON-empirical evidence, but still evidence nevertheless - they would have to be IF they were indeed valid)...
OR...do you believe in God without any valid 'reasons' at all to...believe he actually EXISTS?
In which case you would be believing that God exists without any actual reasons to believe...that he actually exists - which is obviously irrational. You would then be believing in the EXISTENCE of "God" without any valid reasons to actually believe that he DOES actually EXIST - can't get much more irrational, much more illogical, than that.
EvF
How many times fr0d0? You HAVE said that you DO have evidence/there CAN be evidence. But you've said that it just ISN'T empirical.
So where is the NON-empirical evidence then?
OTHER times you keep banging on as if there can be no evidence at all. BUT...if there's no evidence at all then there can be no valid 'reasons' (that you speak of) to believe God actually EXISTS...BECAUSE - If these reasons WERE valid reasons to believe that God actually EXISTS then they WOULD count as (SOME form of) evidence.
Valid reasons to believe that God indeed does actually EXIST would= evidence. I am not asking for empirical evidence I am asking for ANY evidence AT ALL.
We've already established that "God" is outside of the empirical realm so EMPIRICAL evidence isn't required - but there has to be SOME evidence if there's a valid reason to believe God actually exists.
So which is it? Are these 'reasons' of yours valid reasons to believe that God actually EXISTS (IOW: NON-empirical evidence, but still evidence nevertheless - they would have to be IF they were indeed valid)...
OR...do you believe in God without any valid 'reasons' at all to...believe he actually EXISTS?
In which case you would be believing that God exists without any actual reasons to believe...that he actually exists - which is obviously irrational. You would then be believing in the EXISTENCE of "God" without any valid reasons to actually believe that he DOES actually EXIST - can't get much more irrational, much more illogical, than that.
EvF
