The default position.

The idea that everything just poof came into being outt of nowhere and nothing seems like a very unreasonable thing to even entertain.

There had to always be some existence. That seems a lot easier to believe.

I don't think the ball in the box has anything to do with it.

You are not denying a ball in a box, you are saying at one time there wasn't reality.

Its perspectively possible.  I cannot confirm it for you yet because I don't assume causative relationship between evidence and belief.

No Mopac I am not making a claim at all. I am saying I don't know. What about the words I don't know makes you so uncomfortable? Why do you have to make an argument from ignorance?

Do you think it is reasonable to believe something you have no evidence for?

I have not observed or otherwise thought up anything reasonable about belief, so no.

It's very difficult for me to accept as it's impossible to be true.

And yet you cannot win.

Well the point of this thread is to address that very question so while you are under no obligation to participate if you are not prepared to think about that question then you are not participating by default l. The red ball is in your court.

I have thought about it,  and I think the most solid position to take is that faith is not only irrational, but also something you have no direct control over.  That's probably as flat a "no" answer as you can find lol.

Is this equally true of all undemonstrated claims.

You mean as in whether you have faith in them and express belief?  I'm inclined to say yes.

And do you need a reason beyond a lack of evidence to justify rejecting said claim?

Lack of evidence is not a reason at all, so if you are going to justify then you'll definitely need something more.

Sorry I think I put that poorly the claim is that the ball is red. Is it reasonable to reject this claim even if I claim truest faith that the ball is red and you cannot prove otherwise.

I haven't ruled it unreasonable, just stated that lack of evidence isn't a reason and so naturally you would need something more for the purpose of justification.  Since you are pressing, in general why would you reject a claim you can't rule out?  But then real world ethics surrounding circumstance might come into play like a court system might find it practical to reject particularily frivolous claims that don't stand a chance.

In the hypothetical I have ruled out every possibility for the contents of the box except for a red ball. All other possibilities are impossible. Do you reject the idea that all other possibilities are impossible or do you accept this?

No.

No to what? You do not accept that the ball must be red?

You would be correct to assume I have not accepted or rejected the color from the hypothetical perspective.

There is nothing in the world that observably comes from nothing so for you to even entertain the idea is ridiculous and inconsistent with your pretenses of being rational and scientific minded.

You have such an aversion to God that you will believe in anything that can remove you from confessing The Truth. Not too long ago you were trying to tell me that the universe didn't have a beginning, and you had no problem believing that.

See, it's not that you don't know. You know that God doesn't exist, so you will tumble around and do mad mental gymnastics to avoid abandoning this position.

You should give up. The burden is light. The yoke is easy. You are making this so much harder on yourself than you have to.

There is nothing more certain than the existence of God. Believe it. Confess it. Stop doing this to yourself.

What can be more certain than The Ultimate Reality's existence? It is a surety.

There is nothing in the world that observably exists eternally. There is no evidence of either proposition why should I accept one over the other. Far more reasonable to reject both until more information comes to light. 

Then you have rejected the claim that the ball must be red and cannot be any other color by default.

Nope, nothing has changed.

If you think it is possible that the ball is any other color then you reject the claim. The claim is that the ball MUST be red.

You'll have to choose your words more carefully.  Literally nothing has changed as far as I'm hypothetically concerned.  Sorry for any inconvenience

This was never my claim. My claim is that your claim cannot be demonstrated so there is no reason I should accept it over any other explanation. Maybe the universe had no beginning or maybe some outside force sparked or or perhaps it just started without any cause or maybe anything but we don't what exactly and I am unwilling to accept any claim including yours until it is demonstrated. Have you really not understood that this entire time? I don't accept that the universe has no beginning and I don't accept that something exists outside the universe but I also do not accept that the universe began and that nothing could exist outside the universe. I am a skeptic. Prove your claim or I remain skeptical. I reject your claim but accept that I do not know the answer.

You cannot both accept and reject the claim. The claim is that red is the only color the ball could be. If you think the ball could be green for example then you reject the claim by default. 

Hypothetically, I don't recall thinking the ball can be green, and I'm gonna tell hypothetical Castin.

If red is not the only option then you reject the claim. Is the ball red?

Firstly, you only stated in the hypothetical that you ruled out all the other possibilties.  Secondly, I have no belief in  your balls.  I don't recall ruling out any options.