If there's no evidence how would it be rational to believe?
Assuming there is of course, NO evidence for "God" - it is therefore IRRATIONAL to believe in him. To go ahead and believe in him anyway then would be to believe 'on faith.'
That would be: Believing 'on faith' (IOW without evidence) and it would be IRrational.
If it WAS rational then there would be evidence.
If there WAS somehow evidence for God then it would be RATIONAL to believe in him. To believe in him then would NOT be 'on faith' because there would be evidence.
THAT would be: Believing WITH evidence and it would be RATIONAL.
If it WASN'T rational then there would be NO evidence.
EvF
Assuming there is of course, NO evidence for "God" - it is therefore IRRATIONAL to believe in him. To go ahead and believe in him anyway then would be to believe 'on faith.'
That would be: Believing 'on faith' (IOW without evidence) and it would be IRrational.
If it WAS rational then there would be evidence.
If there WAS somehow evidence for God then it would be RATIONAL to believe in him. To believe in him then would NOT be 'on faith' because there would be evidence.
THAT would be: Believing WITH evidence and it would be RATIONAL.
If it WASN'T rational then there would be NO evidence.
EvF