[ARCHIVED] - Evidence Vs Faith

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

Why is it any more rational to believe in something without evidence when there can't be evidence, than to believe in something without evidence when there can be evidence? The fact that you can't know it, how does that make it any different in terms of rationality? Knowable or unknowable - why believe...without evidence? How can you ever do that rationally?

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.

See above.

From post 9 in this thread:

As I've said, I don't care whether there can be evidence or not

I indeed don't care whether there can be evidence or not, because whether evidence is possible or not is irrelevant to the fact that it's irrational to believe without in either case. I am speaking of possibility in that quote, not necessity. I'm saying that I don't care whether evidence is possible or not, because that's irrelevant to the fact that it's irrational to believe without it.

I am not saying that evidence isn't necessary to be rational.

EvF