Hello
I learned that dismissing God stems from the fact that a rational person mustn't believe unless evidence provided. The evidence for believing in God are not compelling as many non-religious folks put it.
Okay but is it logically valid to say that God does NOT exist based on the lack of evidence? Or should we say that God could exist but believing in him is irrational without evidence?
In other words: Is the lack of evidence itself is an evidence?
Am I making sense?
If you can answer this, please help me out here.
See there is a poll here. English is my second language. If this thread is confusing let me know.
Thank you.
I learned that dismissing God stems from the fact that a rational person mustn't believe unless evidence provided. The evidence for believing in God are not compelling as many non-religious folks put it.
Okay but is it logically valid to say that God does NOT exist based on the lack of evidence? Or should we say that God could exist but believing in him is irrational without evidence?
In other words: Is the lack of evidence itself is an evidence?
Am I making sense?
If you can answer this, please help me out here.
See there is a poll here. English is my second language. If this thread is confusing let me know.
Thank you.