I pulled this from a combination of .edu and other credible sources.  It's set in the context of his commentary on the Problem of Induction.  My point in referencing his comments wasn't in any way to discuss his personal religious beliefs, which are irrelevant to the discussion, anyway.  Rather, it was simply to correct the poster's statements that it is irrational to believe in something without physical evidence.  Adhering to this point of view must also lead one to the conclusion that it is irrational to believe in the validity of scientific epistemology.

To reach a conclusion that "believing in 'this' god is irrational" requires a philosophical basis.  Because science is a mere philosophical subset, it isn't good enough to assume it has the final say.  We need to defer to Philosophy in a broader sense to determine whether there is a way to determine what is and what is not logically necessary.  If there is a philosophical basis by you can conclude God is logically impossible, or even that it impossible to know whether God exists, then you are free to make that conclusion.  However, the reverse seems to be true, i.e. Intelligent Design is a logical necessity for reality's existence.

Yes He is Muslim, But he spoke with Reference you can check Bible chapter 1 to prove whether he is wrong or right? If you found that he wrong then let me inform here.

I know of Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Parsi and atheists also who hate dogs.

They hate dogs as they can't bear animals to be innocent and good in heart as they can never be good at heart. They hate dogs as dogs don't have a mind to think evil unlike them. They hate dogs because they love nobody except themselves.