Spelling is over-rated

[Edwardo Piet]

That's a bare assertion, evidence it please

EvF

[fr0d0]

Prove to me your positive claim that evidence is a requirement of belief in God by providing examples of acceptable evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

I do not claim that evidence is a requirement for belief in God. I just personally won't believe without evidence, because to believe without evidence is to believe without support for that said belief, which is irrational.

EvF

[Violet]

I'd put a great deal of confidence in who that alien or god claimed to be, if they did a few very specific things for me, and the human race.

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol....

Well, it's far more likely that it's an alien claiming to be God than it's actually God

You could even pretend it's God if that satisfied it, whilst actually believing that it's an alien, since that would at least be more rational than God since it's more probable cos aliens have an explanation (evolution).

And If it can read you're mind and it wants you to believe it's God - you're fucked if you don't. Unless it can brainwash you or control your mind!

EvF

[dry land fish]

I read it.

[Violet]

Well, I don't so much care who or what it is... I'll just be extremely thankful to them for having done it.

[fr0d0]

I wish you guys would answer the fukkin question!

I do not claim that evidence is a requirement for belief in God. I just personally won't believe without evidence, because to believe without evidence is to believe without support for that said belief, which is irrational.

What's that if it isn't a claim!

Belief without support = irrational. So you're saying that belief 'with' support is rational. Are you not? Or do you need to retract that statement?

What is this support? Where is your support? Show me your 'rational support' or stop claiming it if you can't.

If you can't show me what this rational support looks like then I'm guessing this is a baseless assertion? I don't know of course because you haven't offered a single piece of evidence to support your statement.

So what is it to be? Baseless assertion or support?

Are you making a baseless assertion here Evie?

[Edwardo Piet]

Belief without support = irrational. So you're saying that belief 'with' support is rational. Are you not? Or do you need to retract that statement?

I'm saying that I think it is, because belief with evidence gives support to a belief, and to believe in a belief that is supported I think fits the definition of 'rational', since belief in a belief without support more fits the definition of 'irrational'. And the belief is more likely to be false and and therefore a 'delusion' in the sense of a 'false belief'.

What is this support? Where is your support? Show me your 'rational support' or stop claiming it if you can't.

I'm saying belief without support is rational. So to believe in God with support would be rational I'm not saying there's actually any support, that I know where it is or that I have it. Definitely not. If there was - I'd believe! If I knew of any evidence for God I'd believe. Whether it's possible or not is a different matter. I don't treat God as impossible since I'm agnostic as you know, but I disbelieve him because I know of no evidence. I'm not saying there's support, just that if I knew of any then I'd believe.

If you can't show me what this rational support looks like then I'm guessing this is a baseless assertion?

I'm not saying there's any. So that's a strawman on your part. I'm saying that if I knew of any then I'd believe, I don't so I don't.

I don't know of course because you haven't offered a single piece of evidence to support your statement.

Because I didn't make such a statement, you're making a strawman.

So what is it to be? Baseless assertion or support?

I am not making a baseless assertion. I'm saying I'll believe in God when there's evidence. I'm not claiming to know what that evidence would be. I'm saying I don't know.

Are you making a baseless assertion here Evie?

No.

EvF

[fr0d0]

(Shit he actually answered that crap!!!)