Well Dawkins covered evidence so why shouldn't he cover non empirical evidence??
The reasoning doesn't take a leap of faith, the person does.
You will never ever ever get ANY evidence of ANY form that he exists, because as we have established, that would require us to be gods too. The point of faith is to believe in something we cannot have evidence for. You say you can't have belief until you have evidence. So... you're saying that until you are a god yourself, you won't believe in God.
The reasoning doesn't take a leap of faith, the person does.
You will never ever ever get ANY evidence of ANY form that he exists, because as we have established, that would require us to be gods too. The point of faith is to believe in something we cannot have evidence for. You say you can't have belief until you have evidence. So... you're saying that until you are a god yourself, you won't believe in God.
