based on what I have heard you say. Again, I don't have to understand much about epistemology to know that you pick and choose when and how to apply logic, when and how to take ancient texts as reliable, and when and how to apply modern standards of evidence. "Actual evidence for what? God's non-existence? What does that look like exactly? Evidence for the non-resurrection? Where would he find that?" You see. This is a perfect example of you picking and choosing. How would you respond to a Mormon, say, who demanded "where would you find evidence that Joseph Smith Wasn't given golden plates by god? What would that look like?" You use evidence for the non-existence of things all the time but when it is inconvenient you just act dumb and pretend that it's impossible. "You have utterly no reason to think the past was like the present. I bet you can't even present one reason that doesn't beg the question." Hehehe. Nice try. It is very well evidenced. I have observed it empirically in my lifetime, I have 'observed' it in modern history. The only reason that might cause me to think that the past was different, in the manner that we are talking about, is by the record of religious texts. And they all contradict each other. Why don't you prove me wrong? Why don't you show us what premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for example, are unknowable or nonsensical?"The universe began to exist. This is