You are presenting a loaded question, for it showing a blatant shift of the burden of proof. What you are arguing from is the presupposition that your god exists by default. That is your big fallacy.
IMO you aren't doing nothing here but testing your own stubborndess. I told you already, I don't believe in god because you haven't met your burden of proof, you numbskulls that get 'pregnant by what you ear' are easily swayed into believing a talking snake than I ever was.
IMO you aren't doing nothing here but testing your own stubborndess. I told you already, I don't believe in god because you haven't met your burden of proof, you numbskulls that get 'pregnant by what you ear' are easily swayed into believing a talking snake than I ever was.