That's why I said your dislike of it does not invalidate a natural perspective
Where has my dislike been introduced as a means for invalidating the argument? That’s why what you are saying is not making sense. You are asserting that I have used my dislike for something in order to refute it. That is just nonsense.
But, you have established that, if we live in a naturally confusing world, there is no logic we can use to establish proof of things that we cannot observe with ease.
That is true for you, not for me. I can use the logic that God provided for us but, absent God, you cannot account for the reason(s) we should believe naturalism in combination with evolution is reliable in forming true beliefs about anything.
You haven't established whether or not it is correct.
I have presented the argument on the basis that it is correct. If you believe that it is incorrect then please show how.
We can irrationally believe there is no God, and still be correct.
Hey man, if you are comfortable holding irrational beliefs then all the power to you.
Not by a long shot have we established that God would make us rationally believe in him. The converse of what I just said, is also true. Your belief in God can be completely irrational.
The please demonstrate how my belief in God is irrational. You are throwing out propositions with nothing to support them.
As of now, you have not shown that that position is false.Your position does not consider all the logical alternatives, so you are not being rational.
Provide logical alternatives and explain why they may be logical alternatives. The list you provided earlier may or may not contain legitimate alternatives but I cannot consider them without knowing why you consider rational and demonstrable.
It's not even bare bones logical. It's kindergarten kiddy misconception. It's a non starter.
Now, if I said something like that on here I would get pummeled for failing to describe why it is not logical, why it is a kiddy misconception, and why it is a non starter. Seriously, do you expect me to believe this just because you said it?
If you want to prove God, then prove God. Don't use argument. Arguments are what kids do in the back of a car on long trips.
You have just leveled a criticism against yourself and virtually every other mentally stable human being. If argument is something exclusive to what kids do in a backseat then what are you doing here arguing? This comment lacks any semblance of reflection or intellect.
It won't produce evidence for things we can't observe, that have no way we can extrapolate from anything. Our track record for predicting, based on logic, is poor. It always has to be verified.
Without logic you wouldn’t be able to predict.
If I were to ask you what you value and you indicated that happiness was important, can you demonstrate that this unobservable internalized experience is true or not?
If it stood on it's own, your argument would have won by now. It requires external buttressing by you stonewalling, and not acknowledging logical errors.
What logical errors are you referring to?