AB.
Predictably you appear to be pre-judging any evidence of God before you have seen it and seem determined to find reasons to dismiss it.
It’s not evidence. I can tell you precisely
why it’s not evidence, but for you to understand why it’s not evidence you’d need some understanding of basic rhetorical logic. When I try to drag you kicking and screaming in that direction though you endlessly divert, distract and prevaricate – presumably because you’re terrified of discovering that your reasons for believing what you believe are shit.
You have a lot of trust in the logic you quote - even though this logic is in contention with the conscious freedom we all enjoy and which is a fundamental aspect at the heart of our existence.
You’re contradicting yourself again. On the one hand you tell us you have sound reasons to justify your beliefs (though you never produce them), but on the other you tell us that logic must be wrong when it contradicts your subjective opinions.
I hope one day you will see past the scales of deception and discover the truth.
You’ve never produced anything here that suggests you have the first idea about what is “the truth”.
You could instead though show us that you’re not a coward or a liar (or both) by actually answering the simple yes/no question below that you keep dodging. What’s stopping you?
Once again then:
1. You agree that the way some arguments are framed makes them invalid.
2. You agree that fallacies are documented and codified, so your arguments can be compared with those to see whether or not they’re fallacies too regardless of your or my opinions about that.
3. You agree I hope (though you’ve yet to say so) that using demonstrably invalid arguments to justify something you believe to be true does not thereby make those arguments valid.
So, assuming that you agree with all three premises do you therefore agree that when you attempt a demonstrably invalid argument to justify your faith belief the justification fails necessarily?