(November 1, 2014 at 2:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(November 1, 2014 at 2:35 pm)Jenny A Wrote: No, it's not a misunderstanding. I understand perfectly that you believe without demonstrative evidence. I just find believing without evidence irrational and stupid.
I don't lack evidence. I just lack that evidence. My evidence resides in the realm of intellect. I find it odd that you think what you need your brain to deduce, you find irrational. Yet what you don't need your brain to deduce, you find rational. I suspect we'd have to go a long way back in evolutionary history to find an ape with as limited capabilities as yourself.
Deducing things from fact requires intellect. Some things, like mathematical truths can be deduced without facts. But I've yet to see anyone demonstrate god either factually or by a priori proof.
I understood you to mean you had knowledge of god without either. Are you now claiming a priori proof and if so, what is it?
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.