The default position.

If you refuse to believe that Mongolia exists, you don't need to give reason for being unwilling to consider its existence.

If you believe that Mongolia exists, you don't need to give reasons for accepting its reality.

You don't need to give reasons rejecting the Truth itself either, but I am certainly justified, as is anyone else, for using your rejection of The Truth itself to discern that there is something very off in the way you think.

Mongolia is demonstrably part of the physical universe. If and only if the physical universe exists then we have far better reason to accept Mongolia as existent than we have for anything that is not a demonstrable part of the physical universe and if the physical universe is an illusion then we have equal reason (i.e. none) to believe that Mongolia exists as literally any claim at all.

So your exam0le is nonsense but that's ok you just have a nice day.

I've never been to Mongolia, have you?

Maybe you just believe what you read.

I reject the existence of Mongolia!

Is there is no excercize for a thought experiment, and if so did I put up with all that poor judgement you made for no reason up till this point?  

A more accurate version of this thought experiment would be that there are 5 billion people who believe (without physical evidence) that there is a red ball in the box. There also exist several books, each of which being a few thousand years old, that claim there is a red ball in the box.

Might that be enough to convince someone? Probably but with no more degree of certainty that your original parameters.

Ok have a nice day enjoy rejecting Mongolia.

If you wish to participate I will try again. Do you believe that the ball is red and either way why?

You have a nice day rejecting The Truth.

Let us say instead that there are billions of people and thousands of books each making contradictory claims about the box and that some of them kill each other over the color of the ball and some claim that if you guess the color wrong then you will be tortured for all eternity. That is strictly speaking the most accurate, if and only if we are discussing religion. Honestly however this thought experiment can be applied to any claim which has not been demonstrated not just theological claims. Bigfoot could be the red ball or space aliens or morphic fields or santa clause.

I don't reject truth and I don't recognize a difference between truth and Truth unless one can be demonstrated but thank you just the same.

I would like to, but I'm not confident at all that you will not make something later to disqualify me : (  I appreciate the offer.

The Truth as opposed to a truth.

If is a truth that Donald Trump is the president of The United States. When Donald Trump leaves office, it will no longer be true that Donald Trump is president of The United States. He WAS president, but is no longer.

That is a truth.

The Truth is that which always was true, always is True, and always is True.

For example, The Truth is that there is always some form of existence. The Eternal Existence is God.

The Truth. The Ultimate Reality. The Supreme Being. 

Without which, there are no truths and it is absurd to claim otherwise. You cannot believe in truths while simultaniously denying The Truth.

I'm not sure what you mean by disqualifying you.

There is no observable reason to think that anything always was or always will be true. To do so you would need an infinite observation period which we are incapable of giving/investing. 

To be honest, I would like to edit that post if I was allowed.  This would be the third time I think that I've tried this, based on your initial question.  I mean that even though there are no qualifiers which would bar my entering based on my previous answer history I'm not confident that changes will not be made after doing so.  I don't want to put effort forth and end up with something random and being told to have a nice day.

Well I do hope that you have a nice day. This is really quite simple however. Either you believe that the ball is red or you don't but whether you care if the ball is red is different than if you believe that the ball is red. 

Shall I repeat the 5 senses quote or you gonna just admit we disagree on the importance of faith?

Thank you, that is nice reassurance.  Since my general position has not changed you may take this explanation if you feel like reading previous postings sometime.  To your question on belief, my answer is the same "no".  I have no belief that you have a red ball in the box.

  I am not going to entertain that an honest effort to answer why I have my state of belief while answering a second question, is also my belief.  The root of the reason why may be that "I don't care".  If I put some effort forth I might think otherwise.

So you are saying that there was a time when there was nothing?

And when I say nothing, I mean NOTHING. As in nonexistence. Nothing exists. Total empty void. Nothing at all.

NOTHING.

I don't know. That is the point. It's a ball in a box that we haven't opened.

Is there a reason to think that superhuman senses are involved? I mean sure we can agree to disagree but I would in the end like to understand your position if that is possible.

What does caring have to do with beliefs? I understand that you don't care but that is sidestepping my question not answering it. So I guess now the question is are you willing to put forth enough effort to participate or are we done? It's alright either way and perhaps someday we will find a subject we can both address but if you are not prepared to examine why you do or don't believe then this is as far as we are likely to go on this subject.

You and everyone else in this thread except me adhere to a 'believe what I think is absolute first, and consider relative potentialities only if absolutely necessary' mentality'. You are actually debating trolls and fools who haven't yet realised they agree with you and think it's so obvious the ball is not any more likely to be red because a person says it is.

You keep playing around with your own kind to go 'ha so then why the hell would you believe in God, it's basically like the Easter Bunny you fools'.

Do you know how the best Mafia dons made it? Who the fuck ends up president or behind the winner? Who wins in life? Gamblers who had good strategy meet great opportunity. No matter how sociopathic the game or system is, you end up having genuine trust and brotherhood/sisterhood vibes. When your homie tells you that guy is plotting against you, you can keep saying 'where's your proof' and fear being wrong but you guarantee failure with that mentality just as much as if you believe the wrong thing. It's all a gamble, the game isn't rigged against you, fate hates all equally in the end. Play your dice, start to have some faith in your fellow beings. Guy tells you it's red, you tell me that it's pretty blatant it's genuine belief and not him lying, IDGAF why he thinks it since I can't ask it or find out, better roll with my homie and fail with him than pussy out altogether and go 'ha at least I didn't think it was red and end up wrong'.

Your mentality is just plain loser mentality and if you enjoy losing, that's fine by me.

Winning implies a stated goal at the very least. What is your goal in this scenario?

Being correct about the ball's colour, in your specific scenario, is winning.

Then you cannot win. That happens sometimes.

You can win by guessing the right colour. You can't win by guessing no colour.

You cannot win. I'm sorry if that is difficult for you to accept but it is true.

I have never observed a rational relationship for my beliefs.  I sort of had to guess, but I know that looking at the box and imagining a red ball did not result in belief.  I can figure since there are no forseable alternatives to my own initiative, all reasonable options would require personal effort, but I don't care about your balls or box and as such the only forseable alternatives are impeded.  Since I know that I do not know anything has been otherwise ruled out yet, and assuming I would need to care to dedicate some effort, I say it may be the root of why I have my current state of belief or rather lack thereof.

You will have to be more specific so that I can thoroughly answer this question.  Based on the information thus far, I do not see anything that would alter the course of my will to participate.  

Might I propose something? Is it possible that you don't reject the claim that the ball is red because you don't care but rather because there is no evidence to suggest that there even is a ball let alone a red ball?