You need a reason TO believe first - not a reason NOT to believe. You've got it all backwards..
I mean - you are telling me that my reasoning is 'flawed' that it 'isn't logical' and that it is 'nonsensical' but I just simply need a rational reason to believe first - until I have one I won't.
You on the other hand seem to need a reason NOT to believe first OTHER than the fact there is no evidence OF the truth of the belief and no rational reason TO believe it. Since you can't find one you seem to think it's rational to believe by default.
That's backwards. I mean you're telling me I'M being nonsensical but if you applied that logic of yours to ALL beliefs then you'd believe in the existence of a HUGE number of ridiculous things simply because they cannot be disproven and there is no evidence AGAINST them (other than the lack of evidence, which is important but you seem to think it SUPPORTS your view somehow).
And if you AREN'T going to apply the logic of yours to ALL beliefs, and you admit there can be no evidence of God - then how on earth are you drawing the distinction between believing in HIM without evidence and yet not believing in other things without evidence? (e.g: the FSM).
You need a reason TO believe first. You need evidence OF something first. If there isn't any - the default rational position is disbelief. You don't start needing evidence AGAINST - because how can you have evidence against something if there's no evidence FOR it in the first place?
And if there's no evidence FOR it in the first place, as I said - there's no rational reason to believe.
But apparently that's nonsensical.
EvF
I mean - you are telling me that my reasoning is 'flawed' that it 'isn't logical' and that it is 'nonsensical' but I just simply need a rational reason to believe first - until I have one I won't.
You on the other hand seem to need a reason NOT to believe first OTHER than the fact there is no evidence OF the truth of the belief and no rational reason TO believe it. Since you can't find one you seem to think it's rational to believe by default.
That's backwards. I mean you're telling me I'M being nonsensical but if you applied that logic of yours to ALL beliefs then you'd believe in the existence of a HUGE number of ridiculous things simply because they cannot be disproven and there is no evidence AGAINST them (other than the lack of evidence, which is important but you seem to think it SUPPORTS your view somehow).
And if you AREN'T going to apply the logic of yours to ALL beliefs, and you admit there can be no evidence of God - then how on earth are you drawing the distinction between believing in HIM without evidence and yet not believing in other things without evidence? (e.g: the FSM).
You need a reason TO believe first. You need evidence OF something first. If there isn't any - the default rational position is disbelief. You don't start needing evidence AGAINST - because how can you have evidence against something if there's no evidence FOR it in the first place?
And if there's no evidence FOR it in the first place, as I said - there's no rational reason to believe.
But apparently that's nonsensical.
EvF