Hiii, I don't know why you think that the fact that I wont believe on faith, without evidence, means that I wouldn't even believe if I understood evidence. You don't have to be willing to believe something without evidence to become convinced by evidence.
Like... I have ten bunkers filled with tonnes of gold, guarded by a small army. Believe me without evidence? No?
Does the fact that you don't believe that claim mean that you wouldn't believe it even if I took you on a tour around those bunkers? Of course not
So ya it does sound like illogical dribble as you predicted
But I sure do appreciate the attempt to explain it, that's what I'm looking for
It doesn't take faith to think a painting should have had a painter, we have very good reasons for thinking that's necessary
If you refuse to look at or listen to any evidence that Australia exists, you can keep yourself uninformed, but ignoring evidence isn't what I'm doing in my search for evidence of God. You're saying he doesn't supply any evidence because I wouldn't believe it anyway (but I don't think that's a justified claim, I don't agree that any of your examples show that I need to believe without evidence before I can believe with evidence)
Thanks for the solid effort though, maybe you can expand on your examples a bit for me?
Did you mean to suggest there's not sufficient reasons to predict that a random, unidentified painting has a painter?
Oooo ooo and, did you mean that faith in anything pleases God, or only faith in him? How am I meant to know to have faith in that particular thing if there's no evidence it's the truth? Having faith in any false religion will also induce amazing, potentially convincing experiences too