Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within

If this is true, then belief in God depends on wholly subjective reasoning. It cannot ever be described as objective. You're acknowledging that the evidence that supports the existence of God requires a pre-existing belief that God exists - that the reasoning behind faith requires putting the conclusion before the evidence and interpreting the evidence in such a way that it supports the pre-existing conclusion.I don't think I've ever seen a Christian actually admit that before.This then raises the question, however, of why one should believe in God at all.I don't have to believe that the sky is blue before examining the evidence to conclude that the sky is, in fact blue. I can go outside and see for myself, and following the evidence with no pre-existing bias will cause me to conclude that the sky is blue. It's objective, independent of my pre-existing bias or belief.If the evidence for God is wholly subjective, meaning there is no evidence that will lead me to conclude that God exists unless I actively make a biased interpretation of the evidence by assuming that the evidence supports the existence of God before beginning, then there really isn't any reason to believe in God at all.After all, I can just as easily claim that dragons exist, but that the evidence in dinosaur bones only supports the existence of dragons if you interpret that evidence through the lens of a pre-existing belief in dragons.It's circular reasoning - your conclusion is contained in your premise:"Assuming that God exists, how does this evidence support the existence of God?"It's amazing to me that this blatantly obvious break in logic is so widely held.

If you can't even define this "sixth sense," how can you say it exists? What is it? What are its properties? What does it detect?If you can't answer those basic questions, I'd have to say you're full of hot air. Your choice. Everybody's entitled to their beliefs. ...this statwement doesn't make sense. You can find the end of a maze without exploring every path. I can think of very few times I've solved a maze puzzle and have actually explored every path - in fact, I can't seem to recall even one.Further, how would you propose that a "subjective rat" would find the exit? Since subjective belief requires no objective evidence and can even work in spite of contradictory evidence, I would speculate that a "subjective rat" would be far less likely to ever find the exit to a maze than an "objective rat."But even taking your analogy, have you explored all paths, Phat? Have you explored every supernatural belief system? How do you know which one accurately represents reality? If you cannot differentiate one from any of the others, how do you know that any supernatural belief system accurately represents reality?