No verifiable evidence is the Christian position

[Esquilax]

Esq:

1. logically it has to be an open answer, otherwise it would logically follow that we couldn't be addressing the supernatural.

But not having a conclusive answer in no way justifies recourse to entirely non-verifiable juju.

2. You disagree about discerning the best answer? just, wow.

It doesn't matter what you think the best answer is, it matters what the true answer is. The thing is, you're bringing into any discussion you have a whole slew of biases and heuristics that do lead people astray; this is why science uses repeatability, and falsifiability, and rigorous peer review, to strip away those elements that might lead us astray, leaving only the objectively most accurate answer.

What you're suggesting is that the best answer, in certain cases, cannot be tested like this, and that the answer you're giving can't ever be demonstrated to be true. How are we to separate this idea of yours from a delusion, especially when we have actual, verifiable evidence that shows otherwise?

Just like any agnostic, I should not rule out the possibility that what looks to be utterly convincing may actually be incorrect, that it's all. I'm not choosing between equally convincing arguments, or I'd be an atheist.

Since you've got no evidence that you can produce, you've got no reason to be convinced at all.

3. Circular reasoning

Wow, really? "Circular reasoning?" I never thought about it like that before! Shit, "Circular reasoning!" What a well spoken and cogent rebuttal! Thanks, Frodo! You've fucking convinced me!