standard of evidence

[Doubting Thomas]

What I want to ask Irrational AKD is then what is the rational position to take when someone posits a god which is impossible to believe in and has zero evidence to support it? According to Mr. Irrational, it's irrational and fallacious to say, "no, I don't believe that god exists because no evidence has been shown to show that it does."

I don't think there is any argument that it is totally irrational to believe this god exists without evidence.

So then, what's the rational and non-fallacious stance?

---

I never said it did. however, it should be noted that even if you don't necessarily believe there is no God if you believe the proposition of God is less rational than the proposition of no God, then you must have evidence to support this.

Why? Is it not more rational to not believe in anything that anyone imagines until evidence can show that it exists than to believe in everything anyone imagines until it's been proven to not exist?

You're just trying to twist logic to make a rational position into an irrational one and then labeling it as fallacious.