Rich Douglas wrote:Why bother "proving" a non-existing phenomenon? (Even through philosophical argument.) The onus is on those who propose that such supernatural beings exist. I'll wait until they can provide sufficient support for their hypothesis. (Which I would find absolutely thrilling.)
Brandon wrote:Actually, if I am not mistaken, the burden of proof falls on anyone making a claim. So, if one says that God does not exist, they are obligated to prove that claim. If one says that they are not convinced that God exists, no burden of proof falls on them. Something about positive and negative assertions or some darn thing. I don’t really remember.
Jonathan Whatley wrote:This is why I am an empirical agnostic.
Siniestro wrote:Which shows that Brandon is right.
Jonathan Whatley wrote:This is why I am an empirical agnostic.
SteveFoerster wrote:Siniestro wrote:Which shows that Brandon is right.
Doesn't it show that they're both right, i.e., that whether you assert that there is a god or asset that there is no god that as the one making the assertion you've assumed a burden of proof?
-=Steve=-
Siniestro wrote:They have problems acepting evolution theory, Big bang or quantum mechanics but find absolutely reasonable that Adam and Eve story, among thousand others.
Let's suppose there is no god, etc. and let's look at religion history, how the whole thing started (I think they first had fertility gods in Mesopotamia and Egypt, not sure how it was in prehistoric times) and look into what it has developed. What does it say about us as a species?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest