Views beyond Atheism

[Edwardo Piet]

No I think NE Evidence is just confusing. Especially when you keep using it (seemingly) interchangeably with 'evidence'. I can't follow which you're referring to. Hellish confusing as we agree (I thought) that evidence was impossible.

Nothing could give us cause to believe beyond doubt that God actually existed. That whole holy grail of yours is a mirage.

I don't think 'reasoning' is confusing term at all.

I'm not the one being interchangeable. That's the WHOLE POINT. That's entirely why I am using the term..

Now again you've said that we 'agree that there can be no evidence'. I haven't agreed that. And at times, nor have you...

You HAVE said (like now) that there can be evidence. BUT you have ALSO said before that there can be just not emprical evidence. So all I'M saying is, where is the NON-empirical evidence then?

Because the thing is you are saying I'm using NE evidence and evidence interchangeably - but I shouldn't have to really! Because evidence COVERS NE evidence. Because I am not specifying empirical and I have said many times that I am happy with: evidence of ANY form.

You now say again that there can be no evidence. But before you have said that there CAN be but it's non-emprical.

And I have said that if your 'reasons' are at all VALID to the question of God's actual EXISTIENCE then they WOULD count as evidence of SOME form. Non-emprical we assume, since God is outside the 'empirical realm'.

You have also said very recently, elsewhere; that you are not concerned with God's ACTUAL EXISTENCE.

But do you believe he actually EXISTS or NOT? If you do, why? Do you have no valid reasons? In which case you admit that you are believing entirely irrationally?

OR DO you have valid reasons to believe he actually EXISTS? In which case, that WOULD count as evidence (as I have said)...NE evidence yes we have agreed (since God is outside the 'empirical realm).

So...where is the NE evidence?? Because this 'reasoning' (as I have explained) would have to count of evidence of SOME form (NE evidence I think we have agreed?) otherwise the reasons are valid to the actual question.

And if you are not at all interested in the question, then you admit that you believe in God without any valid reasons to believe he actually exists, therefore you admit to believing in him rationally yes?

In which case would it be something like; that you'd rather believe in a delusion if it INSPIRES you than the truth if it's saddening (I'm certain you don't believe that but all the other alternatives seem ridiculous too; where is the NE evidence?)

Where is the NE evidence then..???

EvF

[fr0d0]

So you don't agree we should scrap Non Empirical Evidence as a term then... fine. I thought you said you were sick of it. No problem, you carry on as normal then.

Like I just said on another thread.. I can't roll out (NE Evidence) reasoning to order. That reasoning is very personal to me, and I have new thoughts every day. There's a hell of a lot of it locked in my head, as no doubt you have stockpiles of reasoning which lead you to your reasoned position.

That we profess opposite reasoned positions, given that we're both telling the truth, which I know I am, and I'm pretty sure you are too, is proof of these two reasoned positions. What you need to do is OBSERVE my position rather than trying to force it. It's already there and happening and you're missing it. With respect.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's already there and happening and I am missing it....?

Yes we are both honest with what we believe/disbelieve on this matter (well I know I am and I assume you indeed are yes).

So we both have REASONS. Whether these reasons are good ones is a different matter.

I am just saying that it is very irrational to believe in God's EXISTENCE without any valid reasons to believe that he actually does exist - to just believe anyway. You can call it faith, you can call it whatever. But if you have no valid reasons but believe anyway - that's irrational. No valid reasons; that's irrational.

How can you believe in HIM rationally if you have no valid reasons to believe that HE actually EXISTS in the first place?

If you DID, however, have valid reasons they WOULD COUNT as SOME form of evidence (I.e: NE).

As I said...I was sick of saying NON-empirical, that's why I abbreviated it to 'NE'.

Then I misunderstood you and thought you were willing to swap 'reasoning' for 'NE evidence' when it turns out that you actually meant the other way around?

I have already explained since then that it looks like I misunderstood you there and thought the swapping was the other way around...

Now...if this 'reasoning' is actually valid to God's existence then that WOULD count as evidence of SOME form...so that's why evidence still applies and why I am still using it (and I misunderstood you on the swap).

Now... you seem to believe in God...and YES you have your own reasons...but, I ask of you: How are these 'reasons' GOOD reasons if you have no reasons to believe God actually EXISTS in the first place? You just believe anyway...whether you call that 'needing for that' or not....

How can you rationally believe in God without having any rational reasons to believe HE actually EXISTS in the first place?

EvF

[fr0d0]

I think we've discovered an infinite loop Evie

(just for the record I'm looking for the end.. dunno about U LOL )

You can't know God exists but you can have good reason to have faith that he exists.

You seem to need it to be the other way around, and then rightly state it doesn't make sense. ie God EXISTS and I'm then proving it through faith - or something like that.

[Edwardo Piet]

How can you have valid reasons to have FAITH in God which is WITHOUT evidence...

...When if you DID have VALID reasons to have faith that God exists then if those reasons WERE valid then they WOULD count as evidence so it wouldn't be faith???(because faith is without evidence).

EvF

[fr0d0]

Fuk!

LMAO

[Giff]

Fuk!

LMAO

What kind of answer is that?? Laughing your ass off? because of what?

[Edwardo Piet]

Because he either couldn't answer or didn't want to or didn't have the time (or he had to go to bed or something like that haha).

Something like that I think lol (to take a guess lol).

EvF

[Giff]

Because he either couldn't answer or didn't want to or didn't have the time (or he had to go to bed or something like that haha).

Something like that I think lol (to take a guess lol).

EvF

If he can't, don't want to or don't have time to give an answer, why answer? Doesn't make any scence.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well it SOUNDED like an "Oh shit" since he said "Fuk!" lol...but I dunno...

I wonder how he will get outta that one..I'ved saved it in my 'personal pad' on the forums for the time being and ...also (for the time being at least)...called it my 'fr0d0 Web' lol

EvF