????
I would have thought that simply 'evidence' covers ALL forms of evidence and not simply emprical. He may or may not think emprical is the only valid forum in such a case but either way, when Dawkins has said time and time again that there is NO EVIDENCE of God I assume he of course means ALL evidence because there is no evidence of God whatsoever and I would have thought 'evidence' INCLUDES empirical AND non-emprical. Simply 'evidence' is just evidence! Evidence is evidence!
You seem to keep hearing "evidence" as specifically empirical evidence. Since I would think that evidence unless otherwise specified includes ALL evidence empirical AND non-empirical - evidence is evidence!!
If it takes us to have God like powers to have evidence of God, and therefore takes us to have God like powers to BELIEVE in God because evidence is the only rational to believe, then fine!!
SURE this may give no chance for believing in God. But the point is until there is evidence there can be no rational reason to believe such an extremely improbable being exists whether it is POSSIBLE for their to be evidence or not!
And besides, guess what! - one of the reasons it's so DIFFICULT to HAVE evidence of God is BECAUSE he's so extremely improbable - because he's so "God like" and he's 'God like' because he IS God by definition (hypothetically speaking lol!) And whether it's possible to have evidence of God or not - until there's no evidence there's no rational reason to believe...
If you think that the fact there CAN'T be evidence means you need to believe with a reason OTHER than evidence then think again....ever thought of NOT believing? There's no evidence! That's the most rational option!
One of the reasons it's so irrational to believe in "God" for ANOTHER reason is because not only with everything else is evidence required basically, but the REASON why it's so difficult (or impossible) for their to be evidence of God is BECAUSE he's extremely improbable! No evidence, extremely impossible - what more of reason could you want for NOT believing?
If for sake of argument at least[ we assume, indeed, that we absolutely KNOW that there can be no evidence of God whatsoever. This is not REMOTELY reason to believe. If there's no evidence why believe? And if he's so incredibly complex and EXTREMELY improbable that he cannot even have evidence TO believe - what, is that a reason TO believe?! NO! Lol.
If there's no evidence for the existence of something then there's no rational to believe that it exists. If it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be evidence for something then there's still no reason because there's STILL no evidence! And in fact there may be even LESS of a reason because the reason that it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be evidence in such a case is often because of how incredibly improbable the thing in question IS!
So: If there's no evidence for the existence of GOD then there's no rational reason to believe that he exists. If it's IMPOSSSIBLE for there to be evidence for "God" then there's still no reason because there's STILL no evidence of him! And in fact there may be even LESS of a reason because the reason that it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be evidence of God is often because of how incredibly improbable he IS!
Do you see what I mean?
EvF
fr0d0 Wrote:Well Dawkins covered evidence so why shouldn't he cover non empirical evidence??
I would have thought that simply 'evidence' covers ALL forms of evidence and not simply emprical. He may or may not think emprical is the only valid forum in such a case but either way, when Dawkins has said time and time again that there is NO EVIDENCE of God I assume he of course means ALL evidence because there is no evidence of God whatsoever and I would have thought 'evidence' INCLUDES empirical AND non-emprical. Simply 'evidence' is just evidence! Evidence is evidence!
You seem to keep hearing "evidence" as specifically empirical evidence. Since I would think that evidence unless otherwise specified includes ALL evidence empirical AND non-empirical - evidence is evidence!!
If it takes us to have God like powers to have evidence of God, and therefore takes us to have God like powers to BELIEVE in God because evidence is the only rational to believe, then fine!!
SURE this may give no chance for believing in God. But the point is until there is evidence there can be no rational reason to believe such an extremely improbable being exists whether it is POSSIBLE for their to be evidence or not!
And besides, guess what! - one of the reasons it's so DIFFICULT to HAVE evidence of God is BECAUSE he's so extremely improbable - because he's so "God like" and he's 'God like' because he IS God by definition (hypothetically speaking lol!) And whether it's possible to have evidence of God or not - until there's no evidence there's no rational reason to believe...
If you think that the fact there CAN'T be evidence means you need to believe with a reason OTHER than evidence then think again....ever thought of NOT believing? There's no evidence! That's the most rational option!
One of the reasons it's so irrational to believe in "God" for ANOTHER reason is because not only with everything else is evidence required basically, but the REASON why it's so difficult (or impossible) for their to be evidence of God is BECAUSE he's extremely improbable! No evidence, extremely impossible - what more of reason could you want for NOT believing?
If for sake of argument at least[ we assume, indeed, that we absolutely KNOW that there can be no evidence of God whatsoever. This is not REMOTELY reason to believe. If there's no evidence why believe? And if he's so incredibly complex and EXTREMELY improbable that he cannot even have evidence TO believe - what, is that a reason TO believe?! NO! Lol.
If there's no evidence for the existence of something then there's no rational to believe that it exists. If it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be evidence for something then there's still no reason because there's STILL no evidence! And in fact there may be even LESS of a reason because the reason that it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be evidence in such a case is often because of how incredibly improbable the thing in question IS!
So: If there's no evidence for the existence of GOD then there's no rational reason to believe that he exists. If it's IMPOSSSIBLE for there to be evidence for "God" then there's still no reason because there's STILL no evidence of him! And in fact there may be even LESS of a reason because the reason that it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be evidence of God is often because of how incredibly improbable he IS!
Do you see what I mean?
EvF
