(September 4, 2009 at 6:03 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:(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?
How does my belief in what I know need to be the same as my belief in what I can't know? The conjunction is fallacious.
(September 4, 2009 at 6:03 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: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.
You're changing the subject. Evidence is important for belief in things we know. As we aren't talking about things we can know, then we cannot apply the same condition to something dissimilar.
(September 4, 2009 at 6:03 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I don't believe I ever said evidence was not necessary.From post 9 in this thread:
EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: As I've said, I don't care whether there can be evidence or not
