Evidence that God exists

[Edwardo Piet]

By the way, a thumbs up for introducing the FSM into the arguement, very rational indeed.

You didn't address my argument at all, you just asserted that bringing the FSM up is irrational without any given reason.

This is why I brought up the FSM, I said:

[...]The burden of proof is on the positive belief without evidence.

There needs to be evidence for God first, before there can be evidence against him.

you responded with:

The burden of proof is on both hypothesis, so it's "irrational" either way.

I responded, asking you if you believe in the FSM, and then:

[...]
2. If you don't, then are you irrational, and is the burden of proof on you, despite the fact you have no evidence for it so it's perfectly understandable to not believe in it? And assuming that that, is perfectly understandable - why don't you believe the same logic applies to God?

So what I'm doing here is asking if it's irrational to disbelieve in the FSM, that it's 'irrational either way', as you say. Assuming you are applying identical logic to the FSM as to God. And if not, why?

EvF