Hey, I'm new

[theVOID]

I respond to ad-hominem from yourself, but you could see it. I've never seen you demonstrate your own supposed justified position, and indeed, I fail to see evidence of any atheist ever doing so successfully. ie having a coherant and logical epistemology. I therefore conclude that atheism is an intellectually indefensible position.

You're a little bit backwards there, Atheism is only defensible in absence of a demonstration of a sound and valid epistemology that permits belief in God - If you present that then I am obligated to agree.

I've presented my epistemology, Evidentialist Reliablism, You did not refute it.

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/comesana/evid...bilism.pdf

My beliefs are, so far as I know, consistent with my Epsitemology, at least where I've tested them explicitly against it.

You try to force people to fit your own requirements, that you then kudos, like you're feeding sea lions. I've rarely seen such self serving ego massaging.

Are you going to continue to dodge my requests?

Indeed

So, yours is?

I attempt to answer any question presented. None of those attempts, surprise surprise, would satisfy your own position of strict denial. You refuse to investigate what is suggested to you, but follow your own pursuits and then are surprised not to end up at your chosen destination.

Please, link me to ONE thread where you have presented your epistemology in it's entirety and I promise I will make a thread apologizing for my false accusations.

Likewise

Unlike you I can show a number of instances where I've presented my epistemology, in Both forms, the syllogistic Evidentialist Reliablism and it's Bayesian form.