RE: Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?
September 5, 2013 at 1:49 am
(This post was last modified: September 5, 2013 at 1:52 am by Max_Kolbe.)
(September 4, 2013 at 11:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Like an atheist, I want empirical, irrefutable evidence that God does not exist.
Now that we have established that you know nothing about what atheists want, let's move on.
I have never demanded such evidence that god does not exist. Rather, I insist that you types provide evidence that he does.
None of you ever have.
(P.S. - your bible is a pile of crap - don't even bother.)
Thanks to you and Stimbo. I hadn't thought about it that way. So correct me if I'm wrong, atheists want proof that God exists, not proof that he doesn't exist? I guess the real point I wanted to make is that I would want, for proof that God does not exist, irrefutable evidence. Yet, I do believe that God does exist, and I believe that without irrefutable evidence. I just find that interesting and it is something I had never thought of before.
(P.S. we can engage in civil discourse.).
(September 4, 2013 at 11:51 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:(September 4, 2013 at 11:34 pm)Max_Kolbe Wrote: I want empirical, irrefutable evidence that God does not exist.
Asking for evidence regarding the non-existence of something is shifting the burden of proof and illogical.
After all, unicorns do not exist and it would be illogical to state show me the evidence that they do not exist.
If there is no evidence to support the existence of something, logically it does not exist and the burden of proof is upon the person stating it does exist despite the underwhelming evidence to support its existence.
Maybe I misunderstood Golbez. It seemed to me that he/she was asking a theist, "what evidence would it take to prove that God doesn't exist".
