How is the reasoning rational if it takes a leap of faith (non-rational)? If the reasoning was rational then you wouldn't need faith (because the rational reasoning to believe God exist would count as evidence of SOME form).
I don't expect God to be PROVEN to believe in him. I just expect there to be SOME evidence of SOME form to indicate that he is in ANY WAY likely to exist!!
As for Dawkins 'not covering NE evidence' - what do you mean by cover? There is NO known evidence of God AT ALL in ANY form - so how do you mean cover it?
He says no evidence. There is no empirical evidence at all any maybe he considers no other form of evidence valid OR - either way, there's zero KNOWN remotely valid NON-empirical evidence anyway!!
As far as I know! (Or have any idea of whatsoever, enlighten me?) LOL
EvF
I don't expect God to be PROVEN to believe in him. I just expect there to be SOME evidence of SOME form to indicate that he is in ANY WAY likely to exist!!
As for Dawkins 'not covering NE evidence' - what do you mean by cover? There is NO known evidence of God AT ALL in ANY form - so how do you mean cover it?
He says no evidence. There is no empirical evidence at all any maybe he considers no other form of evidence valid OR - either way, there's zero KNOWN remotely valid NON-empirical evidence anyway!!
As far as I know! (Or have any idea of whatsoever, enlighten me?) LOL
EvF
