(April 16, 2015 at 5:39 am)Stimbo Wrote: The courtroom analogy fits perfectly. Judging the defendant not guilty based on the lack of evidence doesn't necessitate that somebody else did it. That might follow but it's a completely separate case, which needs to be assessed on its own terms. We cannot say that just because Fred is found not guilty that means Barney must automatically be guilty, even if they are the only suspects. So a dismissal of such evidence as is presented is not a leap to the contrapositive.
I don't see the court room scenario working as a good comparison. There are four possibilities
1. I judge not guilty because of lacking evidence, and I think the guy didn't do it
2. I judge not guilty because of lacking evidence, but my gut tells me the guy did do it
3. I judge guilty because of evidence, and I think the guy did really do it
4. I judge guilty because of evidence, but my gut tells me the guy didn't do it and just got fucked by circumstances
How do these map to theism vs. atheism?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition