It's already there and happening and I am missing it....?
Yes we are both honest with what we believe/disbelieve on this matter (well I know I am and I assume you indeed are yes).
So we both have REASONS. Whether these reasons are good ones is a different matter.
I am just saying that it is very irrational to believe in God's EXISTENCE without any valid reasons to believe that he actually does exist - to just believe anyway. You can call it faith, you can call it whatever. But if you have no valid reasons but believe anyway - that's irrational. No valid reasons; that's irrational.
How can you believe in HIM rationally if you have no valid reasons to believe that HE actually EXISTS in the first place?
If you DID, however, have valid reasons they WOULD COUNT as SOME form of evidence (I.e: NE).
As I said...I was sick of saying NON-empirical, that's why I abbreviated it to 'NE'.
Then I misunderstood you and thought you were willing to swap 'reasoning' for 'NE evidence' when it turns out that you actually meant the other way around?
I have already explained since then that it looks like I misunderstood you there and thought the swapping was the other way around...
Now...if this 'reasoning' is actually valid to God's existence then that WOULD count as evidence of SOME form...so that's why evidence still applies and why I am still using it (and I misunderstood you on the swap).
Now... you seem to believe in God...and YES you have your own reasons...but, I ask of you: How are these 'reasons' GOOD reasons if you have no reasons to believe God actually EXISTS in the first place? You just believe anyway...whether you call that 'needing for that' or not....
How can you rationally believe in God without having any rational reasons to believe HE actually EXISTS in the first place?
EvF
Yes we are both honest with what we believe/disbelieve on this matter (well I know I am and I assume you indeed are yes).
So we both have REASONS. Whether these reasons are good ones is a different matter.
I am just saying that it is very irrational to believe in God's EXISTENCE without any valid reasons to believe that he actually does exist - to just believe anyway. You can call it faith, you can call it whatever. But if you have no valid reasons but believe anyway - that's irrational. No valid reasons; that's irrational.
How can you believe in HIM rationally if you have no valid reasons to believe that HE actually EXISTS in the first place?
If you DID, however, have valid reasons they WOULD COUNT as SOME form of evidence (I.e: NE).
As I said...I was sick of saying NON-empirical, that's why I abbreviated it to 'NE'.
Then I misunderstood you and thought you were willing to swap 'reasoning' for 'NE evidence' when it turns out that you actually meant the other way around?
I have already explained since then that it looks like I misunderstood you there and thought the swapping was the other way around...
Now...if this 'reasoning' is actually valid to God's existence then that WOULD count as evidence of SOME form...so that's why evidence still applies and why I am still using it (and I misunderstood you on the swap).
Now... you seem to believe in God...and YES you have your own reasons...but, I ask of you: How are these 'reasons' GOOD reasons if you have no reasons to believe God actually EXISTS in the first place? You just believe anyway...whether you call that 'needing for that' or not....
How can you rationally believe in God without having any rational reasons to believe HE actually EXISTS in the first place?
EvF
