Well if you can’t tolerate objective rational criticism to your unevidenced rhetoric, then at least it was a “nice” experience apparently. I note again you evaded addressing yet another logical fallacy you used, what do you imagine this infers? I can tell you if you have any interest in learning anything, but it appears you just want to preach your beliefs as a doctrine without any critical debate, like a religion really…
Well I’m always eager to learn, but I already know what blind closed minded rhetoric looks like, and that’s all you’ve presented so far, the threads here are littered with religious apologists doing the same, and many of whom have a far greater understanding of epistemological burdens of proof than your posts suggest you have.
Though they often have the same aversion to answering questions.