(May 19, 2009 at 4:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(May 19, 2009 at 3:03 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I've responded to this over and over again. Whether there can be evidence for "God" or NOT that doesn't mean you don't need evidence for God in order to rationally BELIEVE in him...
That's nuts.
*sighs* What I MEAN is that if there can be NO evidence of God then there's still no good reason to believe in him unless there IS! Ok, no possible evidence. Guess we're going to have to not believe then eh if we want to be rational? Cos unless there's evidence - believing in his existence would be irrational! So if there can't be evidence I guess we're just going have to reject him.
Cos if there can be no evidence of God; there can be no evidence of the FSM.
And if this means we need a reason to believe in God OTHER than evidence then the same applies equally to the FSM.
Why should God be given special treatment over the FSM?
EvF
