Evidence God Exists

[tackattack]

---

nothing. They were two separate points that seemed to be contradicting each other, yet a lot of people have both those personality traits, which was my point.

And a lot of people dont... so what is your point?

On philosophical tests I'm apparently more prone to the skeptical answer. However if I had to be either optimistic or pessimistic about an outcome I was skeptical about, I typically choose optimism. Yes that's biasing, but I think it's more productive than being a skeptic and a pessimist.

Why says you have to "choose" a bias? Why not withhold judgement until the evidence comes in (which is what skepticism is... and I'm glad you agree with me it has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism).

By the same token, if God dropped from the sky tomorrow, atheists would still find a way to deny it was actually God.

If God ostensibly dropped from the sky how could anyone tell that it actually was God?

---

My point was since life is about experience and by their nature is (at the very least originally) subjective to believe you can be completely unbiased is just as irrational as believing in absolute proof or knowledge. If I had to lean towards a bias it would be optimism because I find it more productive (when defining or evaluating usefulness) in general than a pessimistic bias. To answer your question, probably because whatever it was exhibited the traits we reference him as. Are you making the argument that if God reveals himself then he ceases to be God because he is therefore part of experience and sub sequentially part of the universe?