For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
Nofun – “No evidence of any god = defacto proof on[sic] no god.“
Who’s rule is this anyway? The right side of the equation would be, “the question remains open”.
Beyond that, is the question of lives lived waiting. Requiring other people to say go?
Beyond that is the utter disregard for the obvious. What would God be, other than reality?
Then you come to a reasonable application of the scientific method. That activity and the results, being a subset of reality.
Nofun “Its rational logic’s rules.
Do you concern yourself about men with 50 heads? No? Why Not? There is no evidence so such notions don’t matter,.
Do you concern yourself about flying dogs with lasers for eyes? No? Why Not? There is no evidence so such notions don’t matter.
No evidence of any god then, like the above, the notion doesn’t matter.
God if[sic?] a faith construct. Your faith is as real as any human behavior but the object of that faith is not. Stop believing and he disappears and leaves no hole. God has no activity or results.“
You have only expressed an attitude.
That attitude, I will point out seems to require you to assume that other people have based their own attitudes on the same criteria as the ones you base yours on.
Since your attitude seems coherent to you, those other people must be stupid.
There is nothing in my statement that remotely suggests that I am starting from the place that you imagine I have.
For the record, since I also don’t assign much merit to a belief in “flying dogs with laser eyes”, I’ve gone the extra mile to find more reasonable beliefs.
Also for the record, since the existence of Reality is quite obvious, I’m content to consider that as evidence.
The rest is attitude.
[addendum: Better to say that the rest is attitude and the understanding that flows from it.]