A God?

[fr0d0]

No EvF... I've said very many times... my position is the result of rational thought. Your position is the result of obviously flawed reason.

OBVIOUSLY flawed? Let's take a look here..

Yes, very.

I'm not saying it the other way around. I'm not saying before you think about it you have a fixed belief in something... that's equally ridiculous as not believing because of a lack of evidence that's impossible to obtain.

Well, either you believe in something...or you don't!! Do you believe once there is reason to? Or do you believe FIRST and then only DISbelieve once there is evidence against? (which is nonsensical, because there can't possibly be any evidence AGAINST if there is no evidence OF in the first place).

Your repeating yourself again. I already said, and of course it's obvious, no one believes without reasoning. Evidence, we have established, is a ridiculous requirement. Yet you hold on to it like grim death. This you call open mindedness.

It seems like you're stuck in a position of complete lack of thought.

Actually, I have a LOT of thoughts to be quite frank :$

Hehe

You have no idea what the hell to think on the subject. You have no thoughts.

I am simply saying that I think it is more rational to need a reason TO believe FIRST. Either you believe in something or you don't. Do you 1. Need a reason TO believe first. Or do you 2. Expect there to be a reason NOT to believe first? (and if there's no evidence OF the thing existing in the first place, how can you expect there to be any evidence AGAINST it?)

Yup. I needed reason to believe first. I believe everyone does. I already said this in answer to you last time. You missed it apparently.

Evidence... yeah, I'm a god obviously and can know the evidence (sic).

This backwards idea is simply a non starter. You tried but brought up another dead end.

How is it? As I have said above - either you believe or you don't. And do you expect there to be evidence FOR something first, or AGAINST something first (before you believe)? To expect evidence against FIRST is nonsensical because, as I have said, you cannot expect there to be evidence AGAINST something before there is even any evidence OF that very thing in the first place!

Like I answered you, you need reason first. Evidence!!! Are you not reading what I've put? You need to counter that first before you repeat what has been thoroughly logically dismissed.

I find it illuminating given the claim that you would change your mind given reasonable evidence, but here you stubbornly refuse to accept the truth when it smacks you in the face. You hold on to the evidence line no matter how extremely implausible it becomes. One thing this absolutely definitely ISN'T is open minded. Science is far away from your standpoint.

I think it is very closed-minded to just believe in something without any evidence because how are you justifying your belief when there are a SHIT LOAD of other things too ALSO without evidence, that you do NOT believe in? You seem fixated on your belief in specifically God (and things relating to him) without evidence. But there's an absolute TON of other things without evidence, you do not believe in because you are not fixed on them. I think you are fixated on God and biased towards him in particular, give him special treatment, etc, - i.e.: closed-minded.

Here we go again... yeah yeah, I know, you say it every other post EvF. That doesn't make it right. The point has been thoroughly beaten yet you repeat it regardless.

If you believe in God without evidence, how come you don't believe in EVERYTHING without evidence? How are you doing this picking? I think it is special treatment, cherry picking - you are fixated, I think THAT is closed-off and closed-minded..

The fact there can be no empirical evidence of God does not count as evidence towards him! (obviously, no evidence is no evidence). If you believe it DOES, how come you are not applying the same logic to everything ELSE that is ALSO unprovable and unfalsifiable? (e.g. the FSM, Santa, Zeus, etc, etc, etc on and on)

Either you believe or you don't. Do you expect some evidence to believe IN something first. Or do you expect there to be evidence AGAINST that very something first, before there is any evidence OF it in the first place (therefore meaning you'd just believe in anything and everything, otherwise you are simply biased and cherry-picking; and closed-off, close-minded, etc - very nonsensical, etc)

You're talking about evidence of which there can be none. Your points here are therefore irrelevant. You need to re-phrase them.