Quote:if it can be shown to be impossible, it would be most rational to accept that. but the problem is no one has done so. and if there is no evidence at all supporting it, then it is most rational to not accept God exists but also not rule it out. you can only rule out the impossible.
See if you can spot the pattern.
"If it can be shown that Allah is impossible, it would be most rational to accept that"
"If it can be shown that Yawheh is impossible, it would be most rational to accept that"
"If it can be shown that Vishnu is impossible, it would be most rational to accept that"
"If it can be shown that I cant fart an invisible Lamborghini out of my ass, it would be most rational to accept that".
Filling a gap can be done with an infinite number of bullshit naked assertions. How much time do you waste trying to prove I cant fart and invisible Lamborghini out of my ass? Something says to me even before you read the first letter in this last sentence you rightfully dismissed that absurd claim, and did so without doing any work.
Point being you are shifting the burden of proof. You can make whatever naked assertion you want, but I am not going to swallow it simply because you can string words together.
I have absolutely no obligation to disprove your claims anymore than you would have to "disprove" farting an invisible Lamborghini out of my ass.
Any claim that starts with a naked assertion can only be propped up with crap.
