Which Comes First?

[fr0d0]

Anyone at any point could sincerely believe.

I can't.

I could say I believe but I'd be lying if I did.

Me neither. Belief is never voluntary. I don't know whether we'd ever be able to survive as a species if it was. How would that even work?

If I really wanted to not believe something or to believe something, that won't have any effect on whether I do or not. Whether I do or not is not a matter of choice.

Did someone mention 'choice'? I must've missed it. How could you say you couldn't believe - that's surely akin to saying that you are 100% sure of non existence? Whoops!

[...]
Genuine prayers are answered? Ha! That's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Something fr0d0 should be all too well familiar with by now. Oh well.

Good post btw.

Baseless & unsupportable assertion. Repeatedly pointed out to you yet still you persist with it.

What strange logic you work with Eilonnwy. You think asking for something impractical or unrealistic is acceptable or somehow ok? And you want evidence for my position on that!?!

Aren't things that are impractical and unrealistic, the things that if anything, rationally require the most evidence, if you are to rationally believe in them?

Absolutely. Thankyou for your support.

@ E [Elionnwy]:
You deny the non scientific. I don't. Logic would suggest that science doesn't answer every question in human understanding. I've already shown why scientific tests would not show anything. You haven't countered that just repeated your statement. Maybe you don't understand how God answers.

The scientific actually has support. If God has no scientific support, that doesn't automatically has some other form of support. Unlike your God, science actually has support. I am yet to see you give God any support, you have merely went on about how the ridiculous of the idea of God makes it ridiculous to require scientific support for him...but whether that is true or not, whether he can have scientific support or not, why should you believe in him without any support? Will you ever substantiate your God claim(s)?

Maybe God exists but we don't understand how he answers.

My God claims have been exhaustively supported. That you ignorantly repeat the demand for scientific proof despite the logic presented to you is inconsequential.

You don't know how he answers, but you can know because it has been detailed for you should you care to look into it. So again you display ignorance of your subject.