What I am challenging is where the debate is....
And why doesn't science have a part in it?
And if it does, as I believe it does - and its a scientific debate too - then the argument starts with the burden of proof on the theist and not on the atheist...so if the theist doesn't give evidence then the atheist is already winning anyway - right?
I am asking where the debate IS here...what is so debatable?
I just can't imagine debating about Zeus or the FSM and the Zeus/FSM believer 'winning the debate' simply because the atheist made the logical fallacy of claiming Zeus or the FSM was absolutely disproved...
Well yeah, the atheist made a fallacy...but IF this is partly a scientific debate then there IS the matter of the fact that the Zeus/FSM believer as already losing from the outset for not giving any evidence for Zeus/the FSM!
IF it's also a scientific debate...that is
I am arguing that it is indeed a scientific debate too and that so the burden of proof and evidence would come into play; and that I never saw the part that this was specified to be specifically a philosophical argument and not at all scientific and so that the burden of proof and evidence doesn't come into play, only the logical argument..
I did not see where it stated in the OP that the debate was or had to be entirely philosophical. AND I am personally arguing that science also fits into the equation here and that evidence and existence therefore matters and not just the logical argument.
EvF
And why doesn't science have a part in it?
And if it does, as I believe it does - and its a scientific debate too - then the argument starts with the burden of proof on the theist and not on the atheist...so if the theist doesn't give evidence then the atheist is already winning anyway - right?
I am asking where the debate IS here...what is so debatable?
I just can't imagine debating about Zeus or the FSM and the Zeus/FSM believer 'winning the debate' simply because the atheist made the logical fallacy of claiming Zeus or the FSM was absolutely disproved...
Well yeah, the atheist made a fallacy...but IF this is partly a scientific debate then there IS the matter of the fact that the Zeus/FSM believer as already losing from the outset for not giving any evidence for Zeus/the FSM!
IF it's also a scientific debate...that is
I am arguing that it is indeed a scientific debate too and that so the burden of proof and evidence would come into play; and that I never saw the part that this was specified to be specifically a philosophical argument and not at all scientific and so that the burden of proof and evidence doesn't come into play, only the logical argument..
I did not see where it stated in the OP that the debate was or had to be entirely philosophical. AND I am personally arguing that science also fits into the equation here and that evidence and existence therefore matters and not just the logical argument.
EvF
