(September 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I believe in him without evidence because evidence is not anything to do with believing in him.
What do you mean 'not anything to do with'? Whether there can be evidence for him or not, whether it's 'to do with him' in that sense or not....why believe in anything without evidence? If you don't believe in other things without evidence....why are you believing in God without evidence? If you cannot rationally justify the former then how can you rationally justify the latter? Why not cut out the middle man?
Quote:Only for you is evidence important...It's important for all of us in practically everything. People just make exceptions for some special things, like God, or the afterlife, or something else that they 'have faith' in. And I wonder...why? The reasons vary, and I want to understand your case.
Quote:You didn't answer that then.
I don't believe I ever said evidence was not necessary. I didn't speak of necessity. I was speaking of possibility for evidence, and why that's irrelevant to whether you should believe without it or not. So what didn't I answer?
EvF
