1. The problem is you are saying it is a negative......in other peoples eyes it is a positive!
2. TC has the same obligation to prove that god does not exist. Once he makes that statement! What is good for one is good for all!
3. Actually the problem is you are trying to measure God by human standards...hmmmm
1. I think you misunderstand me. TC trying to prove god does not exist is an attempt to prove the nonexistence of something, ie, to prove a negative.
2. Well to be fair nobody has any obligation to do anything
But if you are going to have this discussion, again, is someone who believes unicorns exist under the same burden of proof as someone who believes unicorns do not exist if the goal is to logically determine the existence or lack thereof of unicorns? No, of course not. As has been said x10000 at this point, the burden of proof is on the group making the positive claim (ie that unicorns exist). Until such evidence is shown it is assumed that unicorns do not, in fact, exist.
Let us examine tooth fairies. When we were young it might be said a lot of evidence supported the existence of tooth fairies based on money being found from a supposed tooth fairy under the pillow in the morning after you lose a tooth and put a tooth there. The thing is, if you move out of home and then for some reason lose a tooth (wisdom teeth maybe or chipped or whatever), if you follow the same procedure of putting a tooth under a pillow (ie run the same experiment to check for repeatable experimentation) you will likely find that the tooth fairy no longer has any influence outside of your parent's home. In that case you will likely conclude, given the new evidence at hand, that the tooth fairy was actually your mother (or father).
Here, evidence in favor of the positive argument (existence) was at least shown before it was shown to be faulty. That at least is the right path to go down rather than arguing that the existence of the ghost of Elvis is as logically supported as the nonexistence thereof, without actually providing evidence on either side. Obviously we will conclude, without other evidence present, that the ghost of Elvis Presley does not in fact exist, because no evidence has been shown to that effect. To argue that the two are equally supported from the get-go is in fact a logical fallacy, as, if we are going to discuss
logical arguments for the existence of something (see below), the burden of proof rests on the side arguing in favor of said thing's existence.
3. Obviously (repeating myself now) this entire discussion is outside the realm of human standards, or logic, or whatever, hence religion is dependent on faith, not proof, generally speaking.
And Rob: if we are going to have a logical discussion, then the position that god, unicorns, tooth fairies, etc do not exist is the logical position until shown otherwise, regardless of whether or not it is the correct position. But as I said above, this simply isn't really about logic anyway, and there are perfectly rational reasons (IMHO) to be (or claim to be) religious.
Facebook
Twitter