I'm thinking any evidence (Dawkins made up the non empirical evidence line after all... I've not read everything he's done but hashe ever covered NE evidence? I'd put money on a debunk of that too if he had 
) doesn't prove God. That may be different to what I originally said on here, but it's what I've been saying recently. The ratinalising from the Bible, for example, would only make the leap of faith rational. The leap of faith is only necessary because the rationalising doesn't ever count as proof. Because as with it's proof requiring sibling, non empirical evidence still can't prove God. Again, that goes against the signature of God. ie God has to be unprovable (for the logic to work).
) doesn't prove God. That may be different to what I originally said on here, but it's what I've been saying recently. The ratinalising from the Bible, for example, would only make the leap of faith rational. The leap of faith is only necessary because the rationalising doesn't ever count as proof. Because as with it's proof requiring sibling, non empirical evidence still can't prove God. Again, that goes against the signature of God. ie God has to be unprovable (for the logic to work).
